Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Emperor (2013) in Movies
Sep 9, 2019
A tough challenge
The end of Asian campaign of World War II is complicated. The Japanese surrender following the US dropping the pair of atomic bombs; killing hundreds of thousands, wounding many more and leaving cities in ruins. Tensions are still running at a fever pitch and many people are demanding answers and swift justice for those responsible.
"Supreme Commander" General Douglas MacArthur is put in charge of rebuilding Japan and enlists General Bonner Fellers the nearly impossible task of investigating the involvement of Japan's emperor Hirohito and whether or not he should be tried convicted and hung as a result of his orders. Did he order the attack on Pearl Harbor? What did he know and when did he know it? Was he the one who gave the orders or were his generals in charge of the overall operations? In addition, Fellers is given only 10 days to find his ruling before MacArthur has to report back to his commanders in the US.
Sellers starts with trying to figure out the people involved, find them, interview them and find those who don't want to be found. His interviews ask more questions than answer them and he feels like he is going nowhere fast.
Intertwined are his recollections of a romance he had years earlier with a Japanese exchange student who left the US and returned to her home in Japan. His emotions are getting the better of him while he thinks about his former love and attempts to locate her or learn her fate while he does his job.
Matthew Fox is the best part of this film. As a military man, he respects the chain of command and works within in, but also is able to show his emotions when he is with the woman he loves. I loved the flashback scenes as they were able to show the man as well as just the uniform and Fox did this very well.
Tommy Lee Jones played the character he plays in most of his movies. Barking orders to his underlings and enjoying very much being in charge.
I don't know very much about Japanese culture and this film helped me understand what values they hold sacred. These values highly motivate their actions which can be very noble and traditional or unrelenting and barbaric depending on the situation.
You feel real turmoil as the investigation concludes and the results which are found (or not found) and how the situation is resolved. The characters are flawed which makes them more real. This makes the story more emotional and believable.
The Japanese countryside is beautiful in the time of peace contrasted with the desolate scarred Earth shown after the bombs fell.
Compelling historical dramas always intrigue me and this one did the same.
"Supreme Commander" General Douglas MacArthur is put in charge of rebuilding Japan and enlists General Bonner Fellers the nearly impossible task of investigating the involvement of Japan's emperor Hirohito and whether or not he should be tried convicted and hung as a result of his orders. Did he order the attack on Pearl Harbor? What did he know and when did he know it? Was he the one who gave the orders or were his generals in charge of the overall operations? In addition, Fellers is given only 10 days to find his ruling before MacArthur has to report back to his commanders in the US.
Sellers starts with trying to figure out the people involved, find them, interview them and find those who don't want to be found. His interviews ask more questions than answer them and he feels like he is going nowhere fast.
Intertwined are his recollections of a romance he had years earlier with a Japanese exchange student who left the US and returned to her home in Japan. His emotions are getting the better of him while he thinks about his former love and attempts to locate her or learn her fate while he does his job.
Matthew Fox is the best part of this film. As a military man, he respects the chain of command and works within in, but also is able to show his emotions when he is with the woman he loves. I loved the flashback scenes as they were able to show the man as well as just the uniform and Fox did this very well.
Tommy Lee Jones played the character he plays in most of his movies. Barking orders to his underlings and enjoying very much being in charge.
I don't know very much about Japanese culture and this film helped me understand what values they hold sacred. These values highly motivate their actions which can be very noble and traditional or unrelenting and barbaric depending on the situation.
You feel real turmoil as the investigation concludes and the results which are found (or not found) and how the situation is resolved. The characters are flawed which makes them more real. This makes the story more emotional and believable.
The Japanese countryside is beautiful in the time of peace contrasted with the desolate scarred Earth shown after the bombs fell.
Compelling historical dramas always intrigue me and this one did the same.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King of Comedy (1983) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
While I vaguely knew the name of the film I'd never seen it and didn't really get the vibe that I wanted to, after seeing the Joker though I was hit by so many comments on it in reviews that I really needed to see it.
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
Dana (24 KP) rated The Tempest in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to read this play for my Shakespeare class in college and it was the first time I had ever read it.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
This was an interesting play, and I'm not sure where it will fit on my scale for my favorite Shakespearean plays. While the plot was pretty straightforward, I do not know how I necessarily felt about the characters themselves. This being Shakespeare's final play, I feel like he wanted to pull in some aspects from his previous plays to draw the crowds in one last time.
I definitely see Shakespeare in Prospero. Both men are known for their art, Prospero's being magic and Shakespeare's being his writings, and in the end, both will give up those arts to be with their families. While it cannot be proved, Shakespeare did die fairly soon after his career ended, making yet another connection where possibly his "every third thought would be of the grave" just as Prospero foretold. And of course, Prospero's final soliloquy is said to be Shakespeare's swan song, his final curtain call.
Miranda can be seen as a voice for the audience a lot throughout the play. She is the reason we get the backstory about why Prospero is doing what he is doing, she voices concerns that the audiences may all be thinking. I think this was intentional because in most of the Shakespearean plays, there is at least one character who stands in for the audience.
Ariel, not going to lie, I thought he was a female character, though I found out by reading more, and watching a filmed production of it, that he is often portrayed as a male. I do, however, want to see what a female could do with this character. Especially since he is such a pivotal character to the plot line being in most, if not all, scenes in some way or another. Without Ariel, the story would not have been able to happen.
Caliban is weird. I understand why he hates Prospero and Miranda so much, but that doesn't excuse his actions both in the actual play and before it in the history sections.
I do not quite know what to classify this play as. It is definitely not one of the tragedies (mainly because it doesn't have a character name in the title) but it also isn't really a comedy. Would it be a mystical play? I don't really know. If you do, please, message me or comment on the post, because I am curious.
This play is often referenced in literature and in pop culture, but I never fully understood what they meant, so it was fun to be able to finally get what people were talking about. That being said, I do not think this is one of his most popular plays. Yes, it was his last, but I have not seen it come up as much in my studies as, let's say, Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Overall, I enjoyed the play, but it definitely isn't my favorite. That spot still goes to Macbeth.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated This Idea Must Die in Books
Aug 14, 2018
Book Review by Cari Mayhew.
There’s nothing like reading a popular science book to make you feel more worldly wise! The Idea Must Die is a compilation of over 150 separate articles, by different contributors, arguing that certain scientific concepts are blocking progress and should be put to rest.
Its scope is very broad - at first I felt the book was concentrating on physics, but it later went on to include psychology, linguistics, genetics, criminology, economics and computer science. The title of each article comes from the concept that it is argued should be put to rest.
There were plenty of articles I found interesting and learnt from, including: - “Long-term memory is immutable”, "One genome per individual", “Economic growth”, "Intelligence as property", "Continuity of time", Knowing is half the battle" and "Information overload", “Essentialism”, "Malthuanism" (which is the idea that population will outstrip food supply).
For the majority of the articles I agreed that the theory should be put to rest, and plenty that I thought it was good to see included. These included topics such as: race, nurture vs nature, reductionism. Cancer research theories were also addressed.
There were several topics I was surprised to see argued against, such as evidence-based medicine, scientific method, evolution, carbon footprint, string theory, culture, science being self-correcting.
It was refreshing to see "We are stone age thinkers" but I was disappointed to see the title "Languages condition worldviews". It was also a shame to see AI there, along with robot companions. Ideas in some chapters were disconcerting, claiming there's no self, no cognitive agency, and no free will.
There was a potentially useful article entitled "Scientific knowledge structured as literature" suggesting how publication could move to a new updated method.
With each article ranging in length from a mere 1 to 7 pages, it is an incredibly easy book to dip in and out of, or to fit around a busy week. At times there is a flow between one chapter and the next, but not always. Several of the articles proffer conflicting viewpoints, prompting the reader to reflect and wonder.
Some articles are more-well written than others, and similarly some arguments are more strongly put forward. Usually only one argument is made per article, but at times there were several. I believe some of the articles were chosen for their brevity, which is a shame because some of the articles could use a stronger argument. Some articles are hard to get your head around. The language is not always accessible and often presumes reader already has some knowledge of the subject. Although intriguing to begin with, with so many articles it began to feel dry and laborious at about 60% through. Some articles I deliberately skipped, others I attempted but found impenetrable.
It’s a refreshing read if you haven’t picked a science book in some time and it’s definitely a thought-provoking read if you feel confident that you can get to grips with the material.
For more of my reviews, check out www.bookblogbycari.com
There’s nothing like reading a popular science book to make you feel more worldly wise! The Idea Must Die is a compilation of over 150 separate articles, by different contributors, arguing that certain scientific concepts are blocking progress and should be put to rest.
Its scope is very broad - at first I felt the book was concentrating on physics, but it later went on to include psychology, linguistics, genetics, criminology, economics and computer science. The title of each article comes from the concept that it is argued should be put to rest.
There were plenty of articles I found interesting and learnt from, including: - “Long-term memory is immutable”, "One genome per individual", “Economic growth”, "Intelligence as property", "Continuity of time", Knowing is half the battle" and "Information overload", “Essentialism”, "Malthuanism" (which is the idea that population will outstrip food supply).
For the majority of the articles I agreed that the theory should be put to rest, and plenty that I thought it was good to see included. These included topics such as: race, nurture vs nature, reductionism. Cancer research theories were also addressed.
There were several topics I was surprised to see argued against, such as evidence-based medicine, scientific method, evolution, carbon footprint, string theory, culture, science being self-correcting.
It was refreshing to see "We are stone age thinkers" but I was disappointed to see the title "Languages condition worldviews". It was also a shame to see AI there, along with robot companions. Ideas in some chapters were disconcerting, claiming there's no self, no cognitive agency, and no free will.
There was a potentially useful article entitled "Scientific knowledge structured as literature" suggesting how publication could move to a new updated method.
With each article ranging in length from a mere 1 to 7 pages, it is an incredibly easy book to dip in and out of, or to fit around a busy week. At times there is a flow between one chapter and the next, but not always. Several of the articles proffer conflicting viewpoints, prompting the reader to reflect and wonder.
Some articles are more-well written than others, and similarly some arguments are more strongly put forward. Usually only one argument is made per article, but at times there were several. I believe some of the articles were chosen for their brevity, which is a shame because some of the articles could use a stronger argument. Some articles are hard to get your head around. The language is not always accessible and often presumes reader already has some knowledge of the subject. Although intriguing to begin with, with so many articles it began to feel dry and laborious at about 60% through. Some articles I deliberately skipped, others I attempted but found impenetrable.
It’s a refreshing read if you haven’t picked a science book in some time and it’s definitely a thought-provoking read if you feel confident that you can get to grips with the material.
For more of my reviews, check out www.bookblogbycari.com
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated Love, Hate, and Other Filters in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Love Hate & Other Filters is a book that I was really looking forward to read, it got great hype and the fact that Ahmed is a debut author was just the icing on the cake for me. I loved the premise of the story and learning more about Indian culture through the characters in this book. Ahmed definitely delivered in that area. Her writing was descriptive and her exploration of feelings was on point. It was a quick moving story that left me turning the pages well into the night. I fell in love with Maya and Phil. I especially loved Violet, she has some real MC potential but Ahmed did a great job of not letting her take over the story. I’d love to see a companion book with Violet as the MC, I digress.
The story of Maya and Phil was a cute love story centered in the midst of something so much greater. Their story is derailed by a terrorist attack that hits close to home for Maya and as a result everything she wanted for herself, for her life is flipped upside down. See, the supposed terrorist shares her last name, and as a result Maya and her family have to deal with the insecurities and the intolerance of the people in their community. Islamophobia is a growing problem in our world, and this book is just the tip of the iceberg. The story was haunting and emotional. I personally can’t believe that people treat other people the way they do in this book. It makes me weep for humanity.
I had two problems with this book, which is why I only gave it a 4 star rating… I know Maya is 17 and she would have been just a baby when September 11th happened; however, I would have thought that Islamophobia would have been part of her life from the word go. I’m not saying that it should be that way or that I wish that on anyone because I would never do that. But, I think it’s something that has been so prevalent in our society since September 11th that I find it hard to swallow that she doesn’t mention encountering Islamophobia prior to the terrorist attack when she’s 17. Not only that but her parents don’t mention it either, which I find hard to believe.
The other problem I have with this book is the ending… To be honest it felt rushed to me. I would have loved to see the way it played out in more detail. I would also have preferred the epilogue to flash a little farther into the future. But, that’s just my opinion.
Overall, Ahmed has a great ability to manipulate the written word and weave together a story that will embed itself in your heart. I highly recommend this book, it’s a quick read that is both eye opening and a reminder of what people in this country and world are dealing with. I will gladly pick up any book that Ahmed writes in the future, and I encourage you to pick up this one.
The story of Maya and Phil was a cute love story centered in the midst of something so much greater. Their story is derailed by a terrorist attack that hits close to home for Maya and as a result everything she wanted for herself, for her life is flipped upside down. See, the supposed terrorist shares her last name, and as a result Maya and her family have to deal with the insecurities and the intolerance of the people in their community. Islamophobia is a growing problem in our world, and this book is just the tip of the iceberg. The story was haunting and emotional. I personally can’t believe that people treat other people the way they do in this book. It makes me weep for humanity.
I had two problems with this book, which is why I only gave it a 4 star rating… I know Maya is 17 and she would have been just a baby when September 11th happened; however, I would have thought that Islamophobia would have been part of her life from the word go. I’m not saying that it should be that way or that I wish that on anyone because I would never do that. But, I think it’s something that has been so prevalent in our society since September 11th that I find it hard to swallow that she doesn’t mention encountering Islamophobia prior to the terrorist attack when she’s 17. Not only that but her parents don’t mention it either, which I find hard to believe.
The other problem I have with this book is the ending… To be honest it felt rushed to me. I would have loved to see the way it played out in more detail. I would also have preferred the epilogue to flash a little farther into the future. But, that’s just my opinion.
Overall, Ahmed has a great ability to manipulate the written word and weave together a story that will embed itself in your heart. I highly recommend this book, it’s a quick read that is both eye opening and a reminder of what people in this country and world are dealing with. I will gladly pick up any book that Ahmed writes in the future, and I encourage you to pick up this one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ushering in what they hope will be a bold new era in 3D movie making, Dreamworks has set a very high standard with “Monsters Vs Aliens”. By combining science fiction and monster films, pop culture references, a strong cast, and cutting edge 3D technology, the film is likely to score big with audiences of all ages.
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scary Movie 4 (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anna Faris returns as Cindy Campbell in the fourth installment of the popular “Scary Movie” franchise and your favorite horror films will never be the same.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Due to its ensemble cast, gorgeous aesthetics and whodunit storyline, it’s safe to say that I had high expectations for Knives Out.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.