Search
Search results
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Downhill (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
I'm not going to lie, the trailer did not look good. I went in expecting something that would hopefully be mildly amusing to pass the time before seeing The Invisible Man, thank goodness I saw this one first, ending my double bill with this would have been heart-breaking.
Pete and Billie are taking their two boys away for a skiing trip, things have been tough recently and they all need a chance to unwind. When a controlled explosion on the slopes gets a little too close for comfort the family are shaken. When the snow settles Billie, who instinctively went to protect her sons looks around and Pete is nowhere to be seen. Tensions run high between the could and they both start to wonder what the situation means for their family.
Let me first state that this is a confused mess of genre, I think that was clear even in the trailer, but it became more evident as I sat through the film. It isn't funny enough to be comedy and it's trying so hard to be comedy that it misses drama.
This could turn into a bitch fest if I let it but there are some good points I would like to mention (while I'm not angry at this film).
Both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell get to have moments that are actually quite moving. In the trailer we see Billie relaying their story to their friends, that complete scene you can tell that Louis-Dreyfus is digging deep for that emotion and it comes through incredibly well. Ferrell, when he finally gets to open up about the event felt very sincere, though he does manage to get upstaged by Billie seconds later.
The setting is obviously very picturesque and they do a great job of showing the contrast between the two different resorts, there are quite a lot of clips of skiing that feel like stock footage and somehow feel out of place with whatever genre this film was. The snow footage that really excited me was that initial avalanche early on, for the briefest moment I thought I'd misjudged the film (it was a fleeting feeling). The rush of the snow, the sound and the reaction of the people on the deck really made for a tense moment.
I'm at a loss for anything apart from that thought. I think I vaguely remember laughing at one point, or more accurately, exhaling slightly more vigorously than normal, but I couldn't tell you which bit that was. The guy across the aisle from me (who arrived nearly 20 minutes late) was roaring with laughter... I just couldn't see any of it. None of the jokes landed and the one character who seemed to only be there for comedic effect was so over the top that it just became annoying.
Will Ferrell's movie career is an interesting thing to scroll through, it has a lot of films you've heard of, most of which I just kind of go "meh" at and will never see again. I honestly don't think I've enjoyed one of his films since Old School. Downhill is sadly no different. I had hoped that this might have been interestingly different with its drama aspect but there was nothing to dig it out of that avalanche.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus wasn't bad, I think mainly because her character wasn't overly burdened with any of the comic stuff to do. A lot of her role was serious and that really helped. But with the film feeling so mediocre/bad around her most of the good acting was lost.
If you can find the good in this film then I'm really pleased for you, but I was left confused and somewhat down about what I'd seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/downhill-movie-review.html
Pete and Billie are taking their two boys away for a skiing trip, things have been tough recently and they all need a chance to unwind. When a controlled explosion on the slopes gets a little too close for comfort the family are shaken. When the snow settles Billie, who instinctively went to protect her sons looks around and Pete is nowhere to be seen. Tensions run high between the could and they both start to wonder what the situation means for their family.
Let me first state that this is a confused mess of genre, I think that was clear even in the trailer, but it became more evident as I sat through the film. It isn't funny enough to be comedy and it's trying so hard to be comedy that it misses drama.
This could turn into a bitch fest if I let it but there are some good points I would like to mention (while I'm not angry at this film).
Both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell get to have moments that are actually quite moving. In the trailer we see Billie relaying their story to their friends, that complete scene you can tell that Louis-Dreyfus is digging deep for that emotion and it comes through incredibly well. Ferrell, when he finally gets to open up about the event felt very sincere, though he does manage to get upstaged by Billie seconds later.
The setting is obviously very picturesque and they do a great job of showing the contrast between the two different resorts, there are quite a lot of clips of skiing that feel like stock footage and somehow feel out of place with whatever genre this film was. The snow footage that really excited me was that initial avalanche early on, for the briefest moment I thought I'd misjudged the film (it was a fleeting feeling). The rush of the snow, the sound and the reaction of the people on the deck really made for a tense moment.
I'm at a loss for anything apart from that thought. I think I vaguely remember laughing at one point, or more accurately, exhaling slightly more vigorously than normal, but I couldn't tell you which bit that was. The guy across the aisle from me (who arrived nearly 20 minutes late) was roaring with laughter... I just couldn't see any of it. None of the jokes landed and the one character who seemed to only be there for comedic effect was so over the top that it just became annoying.
Will Ferrell's movie career is an interesting thing to scroll through, it has a lot of films you've heard of, most of which I just kind of go "meh" at and will never see again. I honestly don't think I've enjoyed one of his films since Old School. Downhill is sadly no different. I had hoped that this might have been interestingly different with its drama aspect but there was nothing to dig it out of that avalanche.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus wasn't bad, I think mainly because her character wasn't overly burdened with any of the comic stuff to do. A lot of her role was serious and that really helped. But with the film feeling so mediocre/bad around her most of the good acting was lost.
If you can find the good in this film then I'm really pleased for you, but I was left confused and somewhat down about what I'd seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/downhill-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Rock of Ages is a film adaptation of the 2006 Chris D’Arienzo comedy rock/jukebox Broadway musical.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
Children's Bible Daily Prayers for Family & School
Book and Reference
App
Children's Prayer is an app for Christian families, teachers and catechists with kids of all ages....
MSC1: Be Confident in Who You Are
Book and Education
App
Now for iPhone and iPad! • “As you prepare for back to school, don't forget the anxiety...[this...
Here Come the Warm Jets
Book
"Warren's first book of poems is highly self-reflective, interestingly interrogative, and a lot of...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021 (Updated Mar 19, 2021)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all, it's a damn miracle that this even exists at all. A once mythical cut that just seemed like a fabricated idea from Snyder fans who couldn't quite except that Justice League (2017) was awful. It's no secret that the theatrical cut was riddled with issues, and of course, personal tragedy, that resulted in a messy final product. This extended cut aimed to restore Snyder's original vision, and right the wrongs of what came before, and it mostly succeeds.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Virtual game nights over Zoom have been a big part of many lockdown experiences, so, if you haven’t already, check out this fun, disposable comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. The two ever reliable leads make this 100 minute romp something worth doing, pitched as it is to tickle you on a superficial level and then leave you alone. Not one minute of meaningful plot or artistic message exists here; this is frat house tomfoolery for the now middle aged mainstream and then a bow to the crowd.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Natacha (374 KP) rated Kings of the Wyld in Books
Sep 29, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was another book that I picked after it was recommended from one of my favourite Youtuber, Holly Heats Books, and as always I wasn't disappointed.
Kings of the Wyld is a "getting out of retirement of one last job" story. A band of five getting back together to save the daughter of one of them. The story is very well written, action-packed with a touch on humour here and there.
Things I liked:
-All the characters are very well written. They all have their own unique voice, personality and they offer something different to the band as well as the story.
-The relationships between all the characters are well crafted. By the end, you know and feel how close this band is and how much they love each other.
-I generally adore when an action/adventure book or movie has just a hint of comic relief without going overboard and turning it into stupid moments. And the author knows exactly when and where to add this little moment of humour to make you laugh without turning the story into ridicule. Love, love that!
-You never get bored. There is always something happening, twists and turns and obstacles being thrown to our heroes, without the story getting repetitive.
-They weren't a lot of twists and most were obvious but one of them I didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have seen it coming but I didn't so I was quite surprised.
-The final battle. I spend the entire book wondering how 5 guys will manager to fight a whole army. And the answer wasn't something that I was expecting and it was epic! Maybe with some clichés, like the "final speech to get people to follow you", but they were all so well done!
Things I didn't like:
-The fantasy world contains EVERY creature ever mentioned in fantasy, folk stories, and mythologies. From dragons and orcs to merpeople to vampires and werewolves. Which is amazing and interesting but... because there are so many creatures mentioned some of them are not described maybe because we should know how they look (?) and if you add all the author places and his own fantasy creature some time I got confused and overwhelmed and didn't necessarily know what kind of creature the author is talking about and I couldn't picture the scene properly in my mind.
-Magic has no rules. Which I don't really mind but.... [Spoiler] at some point it was used in a way that kind of put me off. Towards the end, our primary MC loses his hand and I liked the fact that the author didn't shy away from injuring his character but... this was fixed a chapter later with a magic potion that just made his hand grow back. What? Why? And this is where a draw the line on the "magic with no rules". Don't use random magic as a way to "fix" your character because you didn't want them to be hurt after all! Scars are witness to our own story and our past. Those guys went through a crazy adventure they should have scares and injuries, so if one of them loses his hand during a battle why go back on that a chapter later with a convenient magic potion. I was quite mad about that part but it was just a minor part of the story.
Despite a couple of tiny details, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. It was one of the best books I've read so far this year.
The review can also be found here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/king-of-the-wyld-by-nicholas-eames/
Kings of the Wyld is a "getting out of retirement of one last job" story. A band of five getting back together to save the daughter of one of them. The story is very well written, action-packed with a touch on humour here and there.
Things I liked:
-All the characters are very well written. They all have their own unique voice, personality and they offer something different to the band as well as the story.
-The relationships between all the characters are well crafted. By the end, you know and feel how close this band is and how much they love each other.
-I generally adore when an action/adventure book or movie has just a hint of comic relief without going overboard and turning it into stupid moments. And the author knows exactly when and where to add this little moment of humour to make you laugh without turning the story into ridicule. Love, love that!
-You never get bored. There is always something happening, twists and turns and obstacles being thrown to our heroes, without the story getting repetitive.
-They weren't a lot of twists and most were obvious but one of them I didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have seen it coming but I didn't so I was quite surprised.
-The final battle. I spend the entire book wondering how 5 guys will manager to fight a whole army. And the answer wasn't something that I was expecting and it was epic! Maybe with some clichés, like the "final speech to get people to follow you", but they were all so well done!
Things I didn't like:
-The fantasy world contains EVERY creature ever mentioned in fantasy, folk stories, and mythologies. From dragons and orcs to merpeople to vampires and werewolves. Which is amazing and interesting but... because there are so many creatures mentioned some of them are not described maybe because we should know how they look (?) and if you add all the author places and his own fantasy creature some time I got confused and overwhelmed and didn't necessarily know what kind of creature the author is talking about and I couldn't picture the scene properly in my mind.
-Magic has no rules. Which I don't really mind but.... [Spoiler] at some point it was used in a way that kind of put me off. Towards the end, our primary MC loses his hand and I liked the fact that the author didn't shy away from injuring his character but... this was fixed a chapter later with a magic potion that just made his hand grow back. What? Why? And this is where a draw the line on the "magic with no rules". Don't use random magic as a way to "fix" your character because you didn't want them to be hurt after all! Scars are witness to our own story and our past. Those guys went through a crazy adventure they should have scares and injuries, so if one of them loses his hand during a battle why go back on that a chapter later with a convenient magic potion. I was quite mad about that part but it was just a minor part of the story.
Despite a couple of tiny details, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. It was one of the best books I've read so far this year.
The review can also be found here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/king-of-the-wyld-by-nicholas-eames/