Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Thor-oughly entertaining.
Thor has always come across as the weaker of the Marvel film series’. The first film was well made, but never really demanded a repeat watch. The second, whilst not as bad as some people will attest, still felt more like a stop gap filler. You can’t blame the casting for the feeling of nonchalance that the films, so far, have delivered. Hemsworth is great in the role, and the support cast have always given their all, from Hiddleston as Loki, to Anthony Hopkins as Odin. But the stories have just felt superfluous, generic, and lacking in anything fantastical or mystical. In addition they have made the same error that DC made when they adapted Green Lantern – they spent too much time on Earth! You see, there are enough super-hero films that focus on a threat to Earth, so even though you could argue that it is faithful to the comics to have Thor defending Midgard against some mythical enemy, it has the unfortunate effect of making it seem just a little too…familiar. Wisely the decision was made for this third film to break away from Midgard, and go ‘cosmic’ with the story – and the end result is a damn sight better as a result.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
The film spends the first act tying up some loose ends from the previous film, and returning Thor to Asgard. There he finds things are not as he left, and pretty soon Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives to take control of Asgard, and threaten all the kingdoms with her army. Thor himself finds himself stranded on a remote junk-planet called Sakaar, where he finds himself thrown into gladiatorial combat against…well…an old friend. Can Thor unite an army to return to Asgard and save his people?
To say the film is immense fun would be an understatement! Director Taika Waititi, known for comedy dramas such as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do In The Shadows, definitely had an aim to explore the somewhat sillier side of the character, and the film is funny from the outset. Thor, who has always been a little naïve and shown some more awkward moments, is really given a lot of great lines, jibes, and clumsy aspects to round him out as more than just a ‘dumb, cocky Asgardian’. Throughout the film, characters quip and riff on ideas, creating genuine laughs and quotable moments, with even the newer characters getting their moments to impress on the audience. Amongst those newer additions, Karl Urban as Skurge, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie steal any moments they appear on screen (Goldblum in particular just needs to have a wry grin and a raised eyebrow and all focus is on him). But Waititi himself gets to play with the best new addition to the cast, and one we will apparently see more of in the future, as Korg, a Kronan warrior.
So far, so entertaining, but is it all comedy and no substance? Far from it! The comedy serves well to balance against the dark drama of the story. This is titled Ragnarok, and Hela’s assault on Asgard is chilling indeed. In addition, the weaving in of elements from the Planet Hulk storyline, to give the mid-point journey part of the film some meat, ensures that there is never any dip in the tale, and there is plenty going on. The delicate balance of drama, emotion, and comedy is very reminiscent of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and the franchise is so much better for it. After all, Asgardians are an alien race, so why not explore the cosmos a little with them? Even the soundtrack feels a little ‘Guardians-esque’ in style, with Led Zeppelin’s fabulous Immigrant Song being utilised perfectly for battle moments, but a somewhat electro-pop-synth score resonating throughout the film.
This is a film that flies by in run time (130 minutes, but never dragging), and finally gives Thor an identity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As the end credits finish rolling, the immediate desire is to watch it all again – which is not a feeling that the other two films left in me at all. Jostling for position in the top three Marvel films to date (Avengers and Guardians for those who are curious – yes, I know Winter Soldier and Civil War are damned good too, but these films are just fun). Thor: Ragnarok looks amazing, and entertains thoroughly. Ragnarok may mean the end of Asgard according to myth and legend, but it signals the true start of Thor as a character in his own right. All of that positive without even mentioning Ruffalo as Hulk (which you just knew was going to be great anyway)! Just watch the film for yourself, and enjoy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blockers (2018) in Movies
Apr 25, 2018
Decent
Blockers met my expectations and I'm not saying that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent film that might make you crack a smile or two while you fold a load of laundry. However, it just misses the mark of being in the upper echelon of comedies. Let's dive into this film about three parents trying to stop their kids from losing their virginity on prom night.
Acting: 8
The film revolved mostly around the parents who tested their range in spite of the film being a comedy. Even with less screen time, however, I thought the kids (probably adults in actuality) outshined their parental figures by far. Gideon Adlon was outstanding in her role as Sam, a girl trying to figure things out in her own life, but still keep up with her friends. Her performance allows you to empathize with her character and root for her story to end well. She gives me a bit of a Maika Monroe vibe and that's a good thing.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Butt chugging. I could just stop there really. The entire scene was shot in such an awkward way, it put you right there in the moment. There were a handful of other scenes that were captured perfectly as well, but I won't ruin the experience. Let's just say the gang goes on an adventure to remember and you're left with a few hilarious sequences as a result.
Conflict: 5
I just couldn't get on board with the mission here. It felt like the parents had worse things to worry about than following their kids on prom night. Even they questioned their own aims at times. If you're not on board, you can't really expect me to be.
There was another part of me that thought, "What's the big deal in the first place? Is all this really worth it?" Of course the parents end up asking themselves the same question, but not until they're way in too deep. There were definitely some ways they could have raised the stakes to give the conflict more meaning.
Genre: 7
Was it laugh out loud funny? At times, absolutely. There were certain moments that I definitely wished there were more of, but all in all, I felt the film tiptoed around being balls-to-the-wall hilarious. Sure the comedy lagged in some places, but when it was funny, it was really funny.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
When it wasn't funny, on the other hand, the film just dragged on, leaving for a pretty inconsistent pace. When you waste dialogue on jokes or scenes that aren't funny, the film slows way down as a whole. Definite room for improvement.
Plot: 9
The story takes you on a comedy adventure from one shenanigan to the next. Despite the weak conflict, I thought the story itself was fine. I never felt as if things just happened for the sake of advancing the plot (Pet Peeve #1). The story was far-fetched, but it works within its own realm.
Resolution: 9
Loved the resolution for the parents as they all came to terms with their own realities. There were some moments of mending, laughing, and true feel-good points. I especially enjoyed the resolution for Sam's character. This could have easily been a film about just her and it would have been just as enjoyable if not better.
Overall: 73
Blockers manages to rebound from its very slow start into a decent semblance of a movie. The characters are hilarious and the film can be just as sentimental as it is funny at times. See it...at home.
Acting: 8
The film revolved mostly around the parents who tested their range in spite of the film being a comedy. Even with less screen time, however, I thought the kids (probably adults in actuality) outshined their parental figures by far. Gideon Adlon was outstanding in her role as Sam, a girl trying to figure things out in her own life, but still keep up with her friends. Her performance allows you to empathize with her character and root for her story to end well. She gives me a bit of a Maika Monroe vibe and that's a good thing.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Butt chugging. I could just stop there really. The entire scene was shot in such an awkward way, it put you right there in the moment. There were a handful of other scenes that were captured perfectly as well, but I won't ruin the experience. Let's just say the gang goes on an adventure to remember and you're left with a few hilarious sequences as a result.
Conflict: 5
I just couldn't get on board with the mission here. It felt like the parents had worse things to worry about than following their kids on prom night. Even they questioned their own aims at times. If you're not on board, you can't really expect me to be.
There was another part of me that thought, "What's the big deal in the first place? Is all this really worth it?" Of course the parents end up asking themselves the same question, but not until they're way in too deep. There were definitely some ways they could have raised the stakes to give the conflict more meaning.
Genre: 7
Was it laugh out loud funny? At times, absolutely. There were certain moments that I definitely wished there were more of, but all in all, I felt the film tiptoed around being balls-to-the-wall hilarious. Sure the comedy lagged in some places, but when it was funny, it was really funny.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
When it wasn't funny, on the other hand, the film just dragged on, leaving for a pretty inconsistent pace. When you waste dialogue on jokes or scenes that aren't funny, the film slows way down as a whole. Definite room for improvement.
Plot: 9
The story takes you on a comedy adventure from one shenanigan to the next. Despite the weak conflict, I thought the story itself was fine. I never felt as if things just happened for the sake of advancing the plot (Pet Peeve #1). The story was far-fetched, but it works within its own realm.
Resolution: 9
Loved the resolution for the parents as they all came to terms with their own realities. There were some moments of mending, laughing, and true feel-good points. I especially enjoyed the resolution for Sam's character. This could have easily been a film about just her and it would have been just as enjoyable if not better.
Overall: 73
Blockers manages to rebound from its very slow start into a decent semblance of a movie. The characters are hilarious and the film can be just as sentimental as it is funny at times. See it...at home.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Dead In A Week (Or Your Money Back) (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Dark comedy at its finest
This review discusses dark topics such as death and suicide. Reader discretion advised.
Getting comedy right is difficult enough, let alone trying to do it with sensitive topics. But Dead In A Week (or your money back) hits the nail on the head. After several failed suicide attempts, William (Aneurin Barnard) signs a contract with veteran assassin Leslie (Tom Wilkinson), who promises he’ll be dead within the week. This simple concept results in 1 hour and 30 mins of pure entertainment.
Though explicit in the way it discusses suicide, there is a reason for this. Right from the start, William is positioned as an incredibly depressed, isolated failed writer, who is struggling to see the point in living. He is very open about this fact, and spends a lot of time planning ways he could do it, accompanied by a darkly funny montage of the ways he’s tried. He is a troubled character that you can’t help but feel sorry for.
What makes this film even more interesting is the way it makes you sympathise with both target and killer. Leslie is trying his best to avoid retirement, and sees William as an answer to his prayers. If he kills him, he’ll fill his quota, and all will be well. This creates a paradox where you want both men to succeed, but you know that’s impossible.
William changes his mind about the contract when a publisher takes interest in his novel, and he begins to fall in love with Ellie (Freya Mavor), the assistant who called him regarding his latest story. This encounter comes with some rather frank and heartwarming messages about life, reminding us how precious life can be if you give it a chance.
Of course, the film doesn’t just end there. After William’s 360, Leslie is having none of it, and for the rest of the film we see this young writer trying to outrun a seasoned assassin. Leslie’s boss Harvey (Christopher Eccleston) is hot on his tail as well, tired of giving the old man too many chances. It’s a classic tale of a failed assassin, flipped entirely on its head.
Filled with some brilliant twists and turns, the script is formulaic yet hugely entertaining, with some laugh out loud moments throughout. It will certainly appeal to those who like their humour a little darker, with its use of comedic timing and deadpan delivery. It addresses so much in a short space of time, adding depth where needed.
Leslie’s wife Penny (Marion Bailey) adds her own comic relief to the situation, with a delightful satire on middle-class culture. Whilst her husband is trying to keep a dangerous job he loves so much, she’s more concerned about beating her church rivals in a cushion competition. The parallels between the couple are simultaneously heartwarming and awkward, and I enjoyed the way they bounced off each other throughout.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, with some unexpectedly touching moments. I really connected with certain characters and loathed others, allowing me to become fully invested in the film. The encounter between these two men should have ended one way, but the two embark on a journey that changes their lives for the better. Underneath all the humour comes an understanding of mental health issues, and sympathy for those who struggle.
This was Tom Edmund’s feature length debut, after directing a few short films. It’s an impressive first film with good pacing, solid characters, and a well-polished look throughout. It was an ambitious first feature length, but it certainly delivered.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/06/dark-comedy-at-its-finest-my-thoughts-on-dead-in-a-week-or-your-money-back/
Getting comedy right is difficult enough, let alone trying to do it with sensitive topics. But Dead In A Week (or your money back) hits the nail on the head. After several failed suicide attempts, William (Aneurin Barnard) signs a contract with veteran assassin Leslie (Tom Wilkinson), who promises he’ll be dead within the week. This simple concept results in 1 hour and 30 mins of pure entertainment.
Though explicit in the way it discusses suicide, there is a reason for this. Right from the start, William is positioned as an incredibly depressed, isolated failed writer, who is struggling to see the point in living. He is very open about this fact, and spends a lot of time planning ways he could do it, accompanied by a darkly funny montage of the ways he’s tried. He is a troubled character that you can’t help but feel sorry for.
What makes this film even more interesting is the way it makes you sympathise with both target and killer. Leslie is trying his best to avoid retirement, and sees William as an answer to his prayers. If he kills him, he’ll fill his quota, and all will be well. This creates a paradox where you want both men to succeed, but you know that’s impossible.
William changes his mind about the contract when a publisher takes interest in his novel, and he begins to fall in love with Ellie (Freya Mavor), the assistant who called him regarding his latest story. This encounter comes with some rather frank and heartwarming messages about life, reminding us how precious life can be if you give it a chance.
Of course, the film doesn’t just end there. After William’s 360, Leslie is having none of it, and for the rest of the film we see this young writer trying to outrun a seasoned assassin. Leslie’s boss Harvey (Christopher Eccleston) is hot on his tail as well, tired of giving the old man too many chances. It’s a classic tale of a failed assassin, flipped entirely on its head.
Filled with some brilliant twists and turns, the script is formulaic yet hugely entertaining, with some laugh out loud moments throughout. It will certainly appeal to those who like their humour a little darker, with its use of comedic timing and deadpan delivery. It addresses so much in a short space of time, adding depth where needed.
Leslie’s wife Penny (Marion Bailey) adds her own comic relief to the situation, with a delightful satire on middle-class culture. Whilst her husband is trying to keep a dangerous job he loves so much, she’s more concerned about beating her church rivals in a cushion competition. The parallels between the couple are simultaneously heartwarming and awkward, and I enjoyed the way they bounced off each other throughout.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, with some unexpectedly touching moments. I really connected with certain characters and loathed others, allowing me to become fully invested in the film. The encounter between these two men should have ended one way, but the two embark on a journey that changes their lives for the better. Underneath all the humour comes an understanding of mental health issues, and sympathy for those who struggle.
This was Tom Edmund’s feature length debut, after directing a few short films. It’s an impressive first film with good pacing, solid characters, and a well-polished look throughout. It was an ambitious first feature length, but it certainly delivered.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/06/dark-comedy-at-its-finest-my-thoughts-on-dead-in-a-week-or-your-money-back/
Darren (1599 KP) rated *batteries not included (1987) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: *batteries not included starts by introducing us to Frank (Cronyn), Faye (Tandy) Harry (Noble), Marisa (Pena) and Mason (Boutsikaris) who all are the remaining residents living in the middle of a building site, constantly being hounded by Carlos (Carmine) trying to force them to move out to the building can be demolished.
The lives of these residents takes a surprise turn when robotic aliens enter the apartment fixing the damaged caused within as the resident try to communicate with them. The Aliens become part guardians of the residents who continue to fight to keep their homes.
*batteries not included is a charming comedy fantasy that we get to see the serious side of the human life where people are forced relocated. I think this point comes through strong with each side be it the residents the rich or the thugs to remove the characters it all comes off great. We also get to see the unknown with the robots appearing in the story. overall this story is easy to follow and truly enjoyable throughout.
Actor Review
Hume Cronyn: Frank Riley is the café owner and husband to Faye, he does everything he can to look after her and run a business but it is his wish that comes true when the aliens arrive. We see Frank start to have to make the difficult decision about caring for Faye in her condition. Hume is good in this role leading the film.
Jessica Tandy: Faye Riley is the wife of Frank who is suffering with dementia, she spends nearly every moment of her waking day waiting for her son to return and making friends with her condition. Jessica is great in this role where we get to see the most laughs from her character.
Frank McRae: Harry Noble is the former fighter that now is a mute living in the building watching television most of his time. He finds a way to communicate with the aliens that the others can’t. Frank is good in this role where we get to see the stronger character with a heart of gold.
Elizabeth Pena: Marisa Esteval is a pregnant resident of the home who has been getting harassed by the people trying to get her out but she is strong independent woman. Elizabeth is good in this role going through her own struggles in the story.
Support Cast: *batteries not included has a supporting cast that is mostly just Carlos who is trying to chase them out and artist Mason living in the building, we don’t really have a need for a big cast to make this enjoyable.
Director Review: Matthew Robbins – Matthew gives us a truly enjoyable touching and charming fantasy film.
Comedy: *batteries not included has good laughs throughout mixing slapstick with jokes well.
Family: *batteries not included is one I do think the family can all enjoy.
Fantasy: *batteries not included throws us into a world where aliens can be friendly and not a threat.
Sci-Fi: *batteries not included uses the alien side of the story for the science fiction side of the story.
Settings: *batteries not included keeps most of the settings inside the building showing us how these unlikely residents could become friends.
Special Effects: *batteries not included has special effects which still look good today when it comes to the robots.
Suggestion: *batteries not included is one I do think people will enjoy. (Watch)
Best Part: Robots.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: Five ordinary people needed a miracle. Then one night, Faye Riley left the window open.
Overall: Truly enjoyable fantasy comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/24/batteries-not-included-1987/
The lives of these residents takes a surprise turn when robotic aliens enter the apartment fixing the damaged caused within as the resident try to communicate with them. The Aliens become part guardians of the residents who continue to fight to keep their homes.
*batteries not included is a charming comedy fantasy that we get to see the serious side of the human life where people are forced relocated. I think this point comes through strong with each side be it the residents the rich or the thugs to remove the characters it all comes off great. We also get to see the unknown with the robots appearing in the story. overall this story is easy to follow and truly enjoyable throughout.
Actor Review
Hume Cronyn: Frank Riley is the café owner and husband to Faye, he does everything he can to look after her and run a business but it is his wish that comes true when the aliens arrive. We see Frank start to have to make the difficult decision about caring for Faye in her condition. Hume is good in this role leading the film.
Jessica Tandy: Faye Riley is the wife of Frank who is suffering with dementia, she spends nearly every moment of her waking day waiting for her son to return and making friends with her condition. Jessica is great in this role where we get to see the most laughs from her character.
Frank McRae: Harry Noble is the former fighter that now is a mute living in the building watching television most of his time. He finds a way to communicate with the aliens that the others can’t. Frank is good in this role where we get to see the stronger character with a heart of gold.
Elizabeth Pena: Marisa Esteval is a pregnant resident of the home who has been getting harassed by the people trying to get her out but she is strong independent woman. Elizabeth is good in this role going through her own struggles in the story.
Support Cast: *batteries not included has a supporting cast that is mostly just Carlos who is trying to chase them out and artist Mason living in the building, we don’t really have a need for a big cast to make this enjoyable.
Director Review: Matthew Robbins – Matthew gives us a truly enjoyable touching and charming fantasy film.
Comedy: *batteries not included has good laughs throughout mixing slapstick with jokes well.
Family: *batteries not included is one I do think the family can all enjoy.
Fantasy: *batteries not included throws us into a world where aliens can be friendly and not a threat.
Sci-Fi: *batteries not included uses the alien side of the story for the science fiction side of the story.
Settings: *batteries not included keeps most of the settings inside the building showing us how these unlikely residents could become friends.
Special Effects: *batteries not included has special effects which still look good today when it comes to the robots.
Suggestion: *batteries not included is one I do think people will enjoy. (Watch)
Best Part: Robots.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: Five ordinary people needed a miracle. Then one night, Faye Riley left the window open.
Overall: Truly enjoyable fantasy comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/24/batteries-not-included-1987/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Untouchable (2011) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: Untouchable starts as Philippe (Cluzet) is forced to look for a new caregiver after his own accident, he sees a string of qualified applicants, but when he meets Driss (Sy) a man from the projects, he sees someone different and hires him.
The two men are from different backgrounds and have lived different lives, together they teach other about life, with Philippe becoming a father figure to Driss and Driss showing Philippe that his condition doesn’t need to stop having the adventures he loved just because of his condition.
Thoughts on Untouchable
Characters – Philippe is the quadriplegic that needs to hire a caregiver to help him in everyday life, he picks Driss because he is the only one that treats him like normal person. He has always been involved in extreme sports which is where his accident happened, his money will keep him away from any problems he might face, now he must learn to carry on with his own life. Driss is from the projects in Paris, he gets hired giving him a chance at a different life, his ways are different to a normal carer, but this helps him learn how to get more out of his life and get out of the troubles he has been facing in his own life. Yvonne is the personal assistant to Philippe who fills in he blanks for Driss when he is learning the job. Magalie is handles business affairs for Philippe and catches the eye of Driss, she doesn’t fall for his charm like he believes most women would.
Performances – Francois Cluzet is wonderful in one of the leading role, he must show so much through his facial expression which he makes us love each scene and moment he gives us. Omar Sy is fantastic too, he has such great chemistry with Francois and brings the energy required for this role. The supporting cast are all good though they don’t get as much screen time as the lead pair.
Story – The story shows the bond between Philippe and Driss, two men that are from different backgrounds who spend time together when Driss gets hired as a carer for Philippe, we get to see how they both learn life lesson which make them grow as men. The fact we see the man with the lest experience being the best person for the disabled man shows us that life skills are just as if not more important than any training. We do go through the teaching about new cultures between the two and we get to see how both deal with their own serious problems from life. The tone of the storytelling shows us how you can have serious mixed with comedy and still get the point across which is what makes this film such an essential viewing.
Biopic/Comedy – This film uses the biopic side of the film to show the friendship created between the two men, which does change a couple of things to suit the actors. The comedy comes from just how Driss treats life with his carefree attitude which brings all the light-hearted positive vibes to the film.
Settings – The film is set in Paris and uses the settings to show us the two different lifestyles the men have come from, we do get other trips which show us just how far they could go together.
Scene of the Movie – Paragliding scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the time lapse.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most beautiful movies you will see, we get to see a connection unlike anything you could imagine between two completely different people and it will leave you with a smile due to all the positivity through the film.
Overall: Essential watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-u-untouchable-2011/
The two men are from different backgrounds and have lived different lives, together they teach other about life, with Philippe becoming a father figure to Driss and Driss showing Philippe that his condition doesn’t need to stop having the adventures he loved just because of his condition.
Thoughts on Untouchable
Characters – Philippe is the quadriplegic that needs to hire a caregiver to help him in everyday life, he picks Driss because he is the only one that treats him like normal person. He has always been involved in extreme sports which is where his accident happened, his money will keep him away from any problems he might face, now he must learn to carry on with his own life. Driss is from the projects in Paris, he gets hired giving him a chance at a different life, his ways are different to a normal carer, but this helps him learn how to get more out of his life and get out of the troubles he has been facing in his own life. Yvonne is the personal assistant to Philippe who fills in he blanks for Driss when he is learning the job. Magalie is handles business affairs for Philippe and catches the eye of Driss, she doesn’t fall for his charm like he believes most women would.
Performances – Francois Cluzet is wonderful in one of the leading role, he must show so much through his facial expression which he makes us love each scene and moment he gives us. Omar Sy is fantastic too, he has such great chemistry with Francois and brings the energy required for this role. The supporting cast are all good though they don’t get as much screen time as the lead pair.
Story – The story shows the bond between Philippe and Driss, two men that are from different backgrounds who spend time together when Driss gets hired as a carer for Philippe, we get to see how they both learn life lesson which make them grow as men. The fact we see the man with the lest experience being the best person for the disabled man shows us that life skills are just as if not more important than any training. We do go through the teaching about new cultures between the two and we get to see how both deal with their own serious problems from life. The tone of the storytelling shows us how you can have serious mixed with comedy and still get the point across which is what makes this film such an essential viewing.
Biopic/Comedy – This film uses the biopic side of the film to show the friendship created between the two men, which does change a couple of things to suit the actors. The comedy comes from just how Driss treats life with his carefree attitude which brings all the light-hearted positive vibes to the film.
Settings – The film is set in Paris and uses the settings to show us the two different lifestyles the men have come from, we do get other trips which show us just how far they could go together.
Scene of the Movie – Paragliding scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the time lapse.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most beautiful movies you will see, we get to see a connection unlike anything you could imagine between two completely different people and it will leave you with a smile due to all the positivity through the film.
Overall: Essential watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-u-untouchable-2011/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated World's Greatest Dad (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Lance Clayton is a pretty well-established writer, in a sense. He's written several novels and children's books. The problem is none of his work has ever been published. Every submission to publishers has been denied. So Lance tells himself that if his next novel is rejected, he'll give up writing. Lance is also a high school poetry teacher that's on the verge of losing his course due to not having enough student interest. During all of this, Lance has his hands full with his son Kyle. Kyle doesn't seem too interested in much of anything other than the most disturbing type of pornographic videos while continually acting out at school and is on the verge of being transferred to a school for students with special needs. Then, as if that wasn't enough, Lance is seeing the art teacher, Claire, who wants to keep their relationship a secret while not getting too serious. So, it's safe to say that Lance has his hands full. On top of it all though, he's afraid of dying alone. Lance winds up getting everything he's ever wanted after a certain situation presents itself, but soon realizes having all of that doesn't automatically make you happy.
World's Greatest Dad hooked me the first time I read about it debuting at Sundance. I heard, "dark comedy," and, "Robin Williams," and was instantly interested. Then the trailer and plot summary really reeled me in. The result is a film that not only surpassed expectations, but also went in an unexpected direction. When a film is described as a dark comedy, it has usually still stuck to specific guidelines. Maybe it still followed a similar formula to what other comedies did before it. These other films that are labeled as dark comedies don't really break any new ground. World's Greatest Dad goes beyond that. It breaks any ground rules that were laid before it and doesn't follow any sort of formula. When they say, "dark," they aren't kidding. The subject content is pretty disturbing yet is somehow still humorous.
Robin Williams plays the role of a dad who's trying to do his best with the obstacles life has thrown at him incredibly well. With everything that's going on in his life, even in the moments of the film where he doesn't speak, it looks like he's constantly thinking about something. Always dwelling on what's going on around him with the people who are close to him in his life and trying to decide how he's going to handle this situation he's gotten himself into. While his role does show a bit of his comedic side, Robin Williams proves he can handle serious roles rather well with this performance.
While I obviously can't say much about what direction the film goes in without completely spoiling the film, I will say that the trailer does a good job of not giving any of that away. Once the film makes that turn though, it really follows through with it and doesn't let up. One of the best parts of the experience of watching this film for the first time is seeing how far the concept of the film is going to go. As Lance buries himself in this, people begin to say the actions that were taken changed their life for the better. If you told a lie that did that to not just one person, but practically an entire high school...how would you tell them the truth?
World's Greatest Dad is not going to be for everyone. Some people will love it and others will just downright hate it. The film isn't just dark, it's DARK. That and it's a very different kind of comedy with an unexpected turn of events. Most of the humor is very dry, so if that's not your thing then I wouldn't recommend it. For me personally though, it's one of the most interesting films I've seen in quite some time.
World's Greatest Dad hooked me the first time I read about it debuting at Sundance. I heard, "dark comedy," and, "Robin Williams," and was instantly interested. Then the trailer and plot summary really reeled me in. The result is a film that not only surpassed expectations, but also went in an unexpected direction. When a film is described as a dark comedy, it has usually still stuck to specific guidelines. Maybe it still followed a similar formula to what other comedies did before it. These other films that are labeled as dark comedies don't really break any new ground. World's Greatest Dad goes beyond that. It breaks any ground rules that were laid before it and doesn't follow any sort of formula. When they say, "dark," they aren't kidding. The subject content is pretty disturbing yet is somehow still humorous.
Robin Williams plays the role of a dad who's trying to do his best with the obstacles life has thrown at him incredibly well. With everything that's going on in his life, even in the moments of the film where he doesn't speak, it looks like he's constantly thinking about something. Always dwelling on what's going on around him with the people who are close to him in his life and trying to decide how he's going to handle this situation he's gotten himself into. While his role does show a bit of his comedic side, Robin Williams proves he can handle serious roles rather well with this performance.
While I obviously can't say much about what direction the film goes in without completely spoiling the film, I will say that the trailer does a good job of not giving any of that away. Once the film makes that turn though, it really follows through with it and doesn't let up. One of the best parts of the experience of watching this film for the first time is seeing how far the concept of the film is going to go. As Lance buries himself in this, people begin to say the actions that were taken changed their life for the better. If you told a lie that did that to not just one person, but practically an entire high school...how would you tell them the truth?
World's Greatest Dad is not going to be for everyone. Some people will love it and others will just downright hate it. The film isn't just dark, it's DARK. That and it's a very different kind of comedy with an unexpected turn of events. Most of the humor is very dry, so if that's not your thing then I wouldn't recommend it. For me personally though, it's one of the most interesting films I've seen in quite some time.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Paddington (2015) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
Thoughts on Paddington
Characters – Paddington is the Peruvian bear we have all gotten to know from our childhoods, he travels to London in search for an explorer that met his Uncle and Aunt, what he finds is a busy city that has no time for stranger until he meets the Brown family. Paddington is learning about a new world in London, which sees his curiosity getting him stuck in a pickle more often than not, with his love of marmalade being the cause of most of his troubles. Henry Brown is the father that has taken Paddington in reluctantly, he has been working in risk assessment which doesn’t make a bear in the house seem safe, Paddington will help unlock the wild side that Henry once had in his youth before becoming a father. Mary is the mother who wants to take Paddington in, her heart is what makes her the reason the family will let him in, always wanting to do the right thing. Millicent works at the natural history museum, she wants Paddington so she can stuff him and add him to the collection at the museum, always thinking about herself and her family’s legacy.
Performances – Hugh Bonneville as the strict father shown that he isn’t willing to take a change, he goes against everything going with Paddington, only to show just how different a man can be once hit with parenthood. Sally Hawkins brings the light to the film as the caring mother. Nicole Kidman looks like she is enjoying the villainous figure in the film, which does show terrifying moments for the family film. Ben Whishaw does make the voice of Paddington a pleasure to watch through the film, handling the comedy very well.
Story – The story brings the character of Paddington bear to modern day London, where he must learn to fit in while alluding an evil taxidermist. We did need to keep the story simple for the first part of the chapter here, bringing Paddington to a modern London is a fresh spin because the original story was a different time, different minds and now everybody is so busy in their lives they barely notice a bear at a train station. We do get to see how Paddington must adjust to life in London, getting himself into trouble both in and out the house, but shows that his good-natured side will keep the family together, while the villain does have a good motivation which does play into the history of the natural history museum and just how twisted the reality behind it actually is. We do also have a strong theme that shows us just how difficult deforestation will be on animal families around the world, with Paddington being a victim of this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure takes Paddington around the world to a new family, new country and new culture, seeing how he learns plays into the comedy of the film which will get laughs of the pickles he finds himself involved in.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London, it shows just how big the city is for people who have never been there before, the Natural History museum is used well to show moments of fear in the film too.
Special Effects – Paddington being placed into the world looks fantastic, he never looks out of place which shows just how well the effects team worked to make this look seamless.
Scene of the Movie – Using the facilities.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That jungle music line, seems completely out of place in this movie.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun family film that does bring to life one of the most famous childhood characters, it is filled with heart and brings the modernisation vision to the story with ease.
Overall: Family Fun Film.
Characters – Paddington is the Peruvian bear we have all gotten to know from our childhoods, he travels to London in search for an explorer that met his Uncle and Aunt, what he finds is a busy city that has no time for stranger until he meets the Brown family. Paddington is learning about a new world in London, which sees his curiosity getting him stuck in a pickle more often than not, with his love of marmalade being the cause of most of his troubles. Henry Brown is the father that has taken Paddington in reluctantly, he has been working in risk assessment which doesn’t make a bear in the house seem safe, Paddington will help unlock the wild side that Henry once had in his youth before becoming a father. Mary is the mother who wants to take Paddington in, her heart is what makes her the reason the family will let him in, always wanting to do the right thing. Millicent works at the natural history museum, she wants Paddington so she can stuff him and add him to the collection at the museum, always thinking about herself and her family’s legacy.
Performances – Hugh Bonneville as the strict father shown that he isn’t willing to take a change, he goes against everything going with Paddington, only to show just how different a man can be once hit with parenthood. Sally Hawkins brings the light to the film as the caring mother. Nicole Kidman looks like she is enjoying the villainous figure in the film, which does show terrifying moments for the family film. Ben Whishaw does make the voice of Paddington a pleasure to watch through the film, handling the comedy very well.
Story – The story brings the character of Paddington bear to modern day London, where he must learn to fit in while alluding an evil taxidermist. We did need to keep the story simple for the first part of the chapter here, bringing Paddington to a modern London is a fresh spin because the original story was a different time, different minds and now everybody is so busy in their lives they barely notice a bear at a train station. We do get to see how Paddington must adjust to life in London, getting himself into trouble both in and out the house, but shows that his good-natured side will keep the family together, while the villain does have a good motivation which does play into the history of the natural history museum and just how twisted the reality behind it actually is. We do also have a strong theme that shows us just how difficult deforestation will be on animal families around the world, with Paddington being a victim of this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure takes Paddington around the world to a new family, new country and new culture, seeing how he learns plays into the comedy of the film which will get laughs of the pickles he finds himself involved in.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London, it shows just how big the city is for people who have never been there before, the Natural History museum is used well to show moments of fear in the film too.
Special Effects – Paddington being placed into the world looks fantastic, he never looks out of place which shows just how well the effects team worked to make this look seamless.
Scene of the Movie – Using the facilities.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That jungle music line, seems completely out of place in this movie.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun family film that does bring to life one of the most famous childhood characters, it is filled with heart and brings the modernisation vision to the story with ease.
Overall: Family Fun Film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Zombieland (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is an unassuming young man who makes his way through life the best way he can despite being plagued by Irritable Bowel Syndrome. This particular affliction is a serious concern for Columbus as according to his rules for survival, bathrooms are a very dangerous place.
In the new horror/comedy “Zombieland”, Columbus finds himself as one of the few remaining people left alive, and is trying to make his way from Texas back to his family in Columbus in the hopes of finding them alive.
Despite being alone, Columbus keeps himself sharp through constant vigilance, and a list of rules he has created for surviving a world gone mad which he has dubbed Zombieland. As the film opens, Columbus establishes some of his most common rules which are then illustrated in very funny examples, which also serve to establish the backdrop of the film.
As he travels, Columbus crosses paths with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who is on a quest to find the last remaining Twinkies in the world. Tallahassee established a no names rule, hence the characters in the film are known by the locales they are from. When he is not cruising the roads in search of his elusive snack cake, Tallahassee is an avid Zombie killer and takes great delight in dispatching as many of them as he can.
When a stop introduces the duo to a pair of sisters named Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who are dedicated to survival at all costs, and are not above taking some serious measures of manipulation to get ahead.
After some initial difficulties, the group joins up and head for California where Wichita has convinced Little Rock that a local theme park is a Zombie free area that will provide them a safe haven.
Despite some skepticism but buoyed by his attraction to Wichita, Columbus tags along, and awkwardly attempts to impress her which results in some very touching and funny moments.
The film shifts into high gear when the group arrives in L.A. and takes refuge in a mansion which has tons of laughs as well as a very solid celebrity appearance which is a true gem.
Eventually the subplots of the film all converge in a frantic array of action, humor, and romance that had the audience at the preview screening cheering and laughing.
“Zombieland” is a very enjoyable film that provides plenty of laughs and a good mix of action yet remains a character driven story. The leads all work very well with one another and Eisenberg follows his turn in “Adventureland” with a performance that establishes him as a young actor to watch. His likeable everyman quality combined with his charming sincerity and awkwardness makes Columbus a great foil and companion for the outrageous antics of Tallahassee.
The young love storyline is handled well in the film, and does not resort to any of the usual staples, and unfolds as a very realistic event in a world where Zombies are commonplace.
Director Reuben Fleischer keeps things moving at a brisk pace yet allows time for the characters to shine.
Naturally the film will draw comparison to the classic British film “Shaun of the Dead”, which features normal guys trying to cope with a Zombie invasion. Shaun had plenty of laughs, but at times seemed unsure of what direction it was trying to go in, especially toward the end of the film.
“Zombieland” almost defies you to categorize it as it is great mix of horror, comedy, and action disguised as a romantic comedy. The winning cast and formula makes “Zombieland” one of the most enjoyable films of the summer and a real treat.
In the new horror/comedy “Zombieland”, Columbus finds himself as one of the few remaining people left alive, and is trying to make his way from Texas back to his family in Columbus in the hopes of finding them alive.
Despite being alone, Columbus keeps himself sharp through constant vigilance, and a list of rules he has created for surviving a world gone mad which he has dubbed Zombieland. As the film opens, Columbus establishes some of his most common rules which are then illustrated in very funny examples, which also serve to establish the backdrop of the film.
As he travels, Columbus crosses paths with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who is on a quest to find the last remaining Twinkies in the world. Tallahassee established a no names rule, hence the characters in the film are known by the locales they are from. When he is not cruising the roads in search of his elusive snack cake, Tallahassee is an avid Zombie killer and takes great delight in dispatching as many of them as he can.
When a stop introduces the duo to a pair of sisters named Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who are dedicated to survival at all costs, and are not above taking some serious measures of manipulation to get ahead.
After some initial difficulties, the group joins up and head for California where Wichita has convinced Little Rock that a local theme park is a Zombie free area that will provide them a safe haven.
Despite some skepticism but buoyed by his attraction to Wichita, Columbus tags along, and awkwardly attempts to impress her which results in some very touching and funny moments.
The film shifts into high gear when the group arrives in L.A. and takes refuge in a mansion which has tons of laughs as well as a very solid celebrity appearance which is a true gem.
Eventually the subplots of the film all converge in a frantic array of action, humor, and romance that had the audience at the preview screening cheering and laughing.
“Zombieland” is a very enjoyable film that provides plenty of laughs and a good mix of action yet remains a character driven story. The leads all work very well with one another and Eisenberg follows his turn in “Adventureland” with a performance that establishes him as a young actor to watch. His likeable everyman quality combined with his charming sincerity and awkwardness makes Columbus a great foil and companion for the outrageous antics of Tallahassee.
The young love storyline is handled well in the film, and does not resort to any of the usual staples, and unfolds as a very realistic event in a world where Zombies are commonplace.
Director Reuben Fleischer keeps things moving at a brisk pace yet allows time for the characters to shine.
Naturally the film will draw comparison to the classic British film “Shaun of the Dead”, which features normal guys trying to cope with a Zombie invasion. Shaun had plenty of laughs, but at times seemed unsure of what direction it was trying to go in, especially toward the end of the film.
“Zombieland” almost defies you to categorize it as it is great mix of horror, comedy, and action disguised as a romantic comedy. The winning cast and formula makes “Zombieland” one of the most enjoyable films of the summer and a real treat.