Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
Sep 20, 2023
You Will Want To Go Under The Sea
Back in 2013, the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl with a QB, Joe Flacco, who was a “game manager”. His reputation was that he was NOT spectacular and wouldn’t win a game for you, but he also wouldn’t take chances and LOSE a game for you.
Such the same can be said of newcomer Halle Bailey as Ariel in Disney’s Live Action remake of THE LITTLE MERMAID. She produces a competent, steady (but unspectacular) performance that doesn’t really add all that much to the film, but (more importantly) it doesn’t detract either.
And that is a GOOD (enough) thing as Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) populates this remake with some wonderful performers/performances to go along with better-than-average CGI and some new songs that actually work well (and don’t just seem like “add-ons”). All of this adds up to a very enjoyable family time at the movies.
Following the plot of the Disney Animated film from 1989, this Little Mermaid does not sway too far from the basic plot, though it does cut down (a bit) on the musical numbers. But when it swings big, it swings BIG and these swings connect.
Daveed Diggs (Broadway’s Hamilton) almost steals the film as the voice of Sebastian the Crab and his UNDER THE SEA number is a visual and audible delight while Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) fills in very well in the Buddy Hackett role as the bird Scuttle. Surprisingly, young Jacob Trembley (ROOM) more than holds his own in this crazy trio of sidekicks as the young fish Flounder. These three work together quite a bit more in this film than in the previous, animated one and they work well together.
But, make no mistake, this film is Melissa McCarthy’s and as the evil Sea Witch Ursula, she demands you pay attention - and keep paying attention - to her. Her big number, POOR UNFORTUNATE SOULS is deep, rich and powerful while her performance throughout the film is just enough over-the-top to work. Credit needs to go to both McCarthy and Marshall to understand when enough was enough or when they went too far and reigned it in.
Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) also populates this film as Ariel’s father, King Triton, and while it looks like Bardem is trying very, very hard to audition for a serious Shakespeare role, it works well here.
Finally, the biggest surprise to me in this film is Jonah Hauer-King (he played Laurie in the Saoirse Ronan/Emma Watson/Florence Pugh LITTLE WOMEN) as Prince Eric. In the animated version of this film, poor Prince Eric has very little to do, except to be Ariel’s “Prince Charming”. In this version, writer David Magee (LIFE OF PI) turns Eric into a real character with some depth - and a song! The 2nd half of this film was as much about Prince Eric as it was about Ariel.
And, that is okay, for the ending of this film needed some energy in addition to Bailey’s to make it rise above the rest of film and with the help of all those other wonderful performers, it rises well above (and not under) the sea.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such the same can be said of newcomer Halle Bailey as Ariel in Disney’s Live Action remake of THE LITTLE MERMAID. She produces a competent, steady (but unspectacular) performance that doesn’t really add all that much to the film, but (more importantly) it doesn’t detract either.
And that is a GOOD (enough) thing as Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) populates this remake with some wonderful performers/performances to go along with better-than-average CGI and some new songs that actually work well (and don’t just seem like “add-ons”). All of this adds up to a very enjoyable family time at the movies.
Following the plot of the Disney Animated film from 1989, this Little Mermaid does not sway too far from the basic plot, though it does cut down (a bit) on the musical numbers. But when it swings big, it swings BIG and these swings connect.
Daveed Diggs (Broadway’s Hamilton) almost steals the film as the voice of Sebastian the Crab and his UNDER THE SEA number is a visual and audible delight while Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) fills in very well in the Buddy Hackett role as the bird Scuttle. Surprisingly, young Jacob Trembley (ROOM) more than holds his own in this crazy trio of sidekicks as the young fish Flounder. These three work together quite a bit more in this film than in the previous, animated one and they work well together.
But, make no mistake, this film is Melissa McCarthy’s and as the evil Sea Witch Ursula, she demands you pay attention - and keep paying attention - to her. Her big number, POOR UNFORTUNATE SOULS is deep, rich and powerful while her performance throughout the film is just enough over-the-top to work. Credit needs to go to both McCarthy and Marshall to understand when enough was enough or when they went too far and reigned it in.
Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) also populates this film as Ariel’s father, King Triton, and while it looks like Bardem is trying very, very hard to audition for a serious Shakespeare role, it works well here.
Finally, the biggest surprise to me in this film is Jonah Hauer-King (he played Laurie in the Saoirse Ronan/Emma Watson/Florence Pugh LITTLE WOMEN) as Prince Eric. In the animated version of this film, poor Prince Eric has very little to do, except to be Ariel’s “Prince Charming”. In this version, writer David Magee (LIFE OF PI) turns Eric into a real character with some depth - and a song! The 2nd half of this film was as much about Prince Eric as it was about Ariel.
And, that is okay, for the ending of this film needed some energy in addition to Bailey’s to make it rise above the rest of film and with the help of all those other wonderful performers, it rises well above (and not under) the sea.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Finding Dory (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Is it a return to form for Pixar/
For years, Pixar was an unstoppable force. The studio combined stunning animation with thought-provoking stories that adults and children could enjoy. From Toy Story to Wall.E, everyone, at some point will have watched a Pixar film.
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PC version of Far Cry: New Dawn in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 19, 2019)
Ubisoft certainly surprised the gaming community when they announced Far Cry: New Dawn and released it only a few weeks later. The fact that another Far Cry game was coming was certainly not a huge shock as the series has been phenomenally popular. However since the prior game had just completed its third and final DLC; many were caught aback by the announcement that this would be a direct follow-up to Far Cry 5.
The previous core series have been unrelated to each other in terms of storyline so the fact that this one takes place after the events of the prior game is a bit of a departure. Combined with the fact that the new release is $39.99 compared to the usual $59.99 price for new game; many had expected essentially glorified DLC versus an entire new game.
While the gameplay mechanics, combat, crafting, travel, resource gathering, and other aspects of the game are similar to how they were in the prior game; the storyline features a very engaging mix of new and old characters in a unique setting that easily captures your attention and expands on the story of the previous game although it is not necessary for you to have played it in order to appreciate this release.
I found that I had logged in over 16 hours of gameplay to complete New Dawn and this was sticking mainly to the core stories and only doing a few treasure hunts when needed as well as excursions.
The ability to hunt and fish remains in game and there is an abundance of ways to upgrade your vehicles, weapons, perks, and attire so players can find a look and style that best meets their needs.
Missions were actually quite engaging and had quite a bit of variety in them; and I especially liked the ones where I had to take part in races or a Demo Derby. I also loved flying my crafted helicopter over the vast map area to see the vast scope of the gameplay area.
Graphically the game looks very much like the previous game in that it has solid graphics and the detail level of the countryside of Hope County is abundant. My biggest issue is with the audio which dropped out frequently during the game at cut scenes but thankfully the captions allowed me to follow what was going on without having to retrace any of my steps.
The abundance of weapons and wildlife definitely creates plenty of opportunities for players to find their own comfort level and the enemies are plentiful which allows for some incredibly graphic but ultimately satisfying takedowns. I loved the saw blade launchers which literally cut an enemy down to size and had a Boomerang effect which was ideal for multiple targets.
The main enemies of the game are an interesting foe in that you have a pair of twins who are every bit as psychotic and dangerous is the best villains from the series. While they will not surpass Vaas in Far Cry 3; they are worthy adversaries.
While I would not say the game will bring new fans to the series; it does present a very satisfying extension to the Far Cry 5 storyline and as such; definitely kept my interest throughout.
Players do have the option to play the game in a Co-Op mode or to select various characters they encounter along the way to provide assistance when needed.
Far Cry: New Dawn is a satisfying entry in the series which should tide fans over until the next release and I cannot wait to see what they come up with next.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/10/far-cry-new-dawn/
The previous core series have been unrelated to each other in terms of storyline so the fact that this one takes place after the events of the prior game is a bit of a departure. Combined with the fact that the new release is $39.99 compared to the usual $59.99 price for new game; many had expected essentially glorified DLC versus an entire new game.
While the gameplay mechanics, combat, crafting, travel, resource gathering, and other aspects of the game are similar to how they were in the prior game; the storyline features a very engaging mix of new and old characters in a unique setting that easily captures your attention and expands on the story of the previous game although it is not necessary for you to have played it in order to appreciate this release.
I found that I had logged in over 16 hours of gameplay to complete New Dawn and this was sticking mainly to the core stories and only doing a few treasure hunts when needed as well as excursions.
The ability to hunt and fish remains in game and there is an abundance of ways to upgrade your vehicles, weapons, perks, and attire so players can find a look and style that best meets their needs.
Missions were actually quite engaging and had quite a bit of variety in them; and I especially liked the ones where I had to take part in races or a Demo Derby. I also loved flying my crafted helicopter over the vast map area to see the vast scope of the gameplay area.
Graphically the game looks very much like the previous game in that it has solid graphics and the detail level of the countryside of Hope County is abundant. My biggest issue is with the audio which dropped out frequently during the game at cut scenes but thankfully the captions allowed me to follow what was going on without having to retrace any of my steps.
The abundance of weapons and wildlife definitely creates plenty of opportunities for players to find their own comfort level and the enemies are plentiful which allows for some incredibly graphic but ultimately satisfying takedowns. I loved the saw blade launchers which literally cut an enemy down to size and had a Boomerang effect which was ideal for multiple targets.
The main enemies of the game are an interesting foe in that you have a pair of twins who are every bit as psychotic and dangerous is the best villains from the series. While they will not surpass Vaas in Far Cry 3; they are worthy adversaries.
While I would not say the game will bring new fans to the series; it does present a very satisfying extension to the Far Cry 5 storyline and as such; definitely kept my interest throughout.
Players do have the option to play the game in a Co-Op mode or to select various characters they encounter along the way to provide assistance when needed.
Far Cry: New Dawn is a satisfying entry in the series which should tide fans over until the next release and I cannot wait to see what they come up with next.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/10/far-cry-new-dawn/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated New In Town (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When asked my impression of “New in Town” the first thing I could come up with was, “It was cute.” That meant I felt positive about the movie, right? Right. It just wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. However, anything less than “cute” would’ve been unfair, but anything more would’ve been effusive.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Shatter Me in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Lupe and I made a random, out of the blue deal where I read <i>Shatter Me</i> (the entire series), and she finally gets her act together to read the amazingness called <i>Harry Potter</i> (the entire series). <b>She's trekking her way merrily - I've made a fan out of her yet. #SophiaIsProud</b>
<b>Let’s be honest here: she gets the better deal.</b> This trilogy and I will have a strong love/hate relationship that knows no bounds because all I wanted to do was:
<ul>
<li>Throw my iPad at Lupe if she shows herself (not literally)</li>
<li>Hug the book</li>
<li>Die of laughter</li>
<li>Stop torturing myself</li>
<li>Repeat</li>
</ul>
<i>Shatter Me</i> is straight up the alley of everything I will read because a character who kills anything they touch is a golden novel. It’s like King Midas’s curse gone completely wrong.
But unfortunately, it’s my cup of tea with way too much sugar and other weird flavors.
<b>
</b> <b>There is a massive amount of numbers.</b> The first 5-6 chapters had my eyes crying because 1) I really hate numbers, 2) numbers just remind me of math, 3) I don’t like math, 4) it reminds me of Calculus, which went POORLY (AKA failed the final with a giant fish flop) and 5) I think I’m allergic to numbers.
<b>
</b> <b>There is also a lot of strikeouts.</b> Honestly, I can’t complain, because I use strikeouts on my own blog and if I say I hated them I would be contradicting myself. I’ve basically learned that strikeouts take up space and are sometimes unnecessary, which is the case with <i>Shatter Me</i>.
There are fewer numbers and strikeouts as the book progresses, but they remain. My eyes cry less, and I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">whine</span> complain less about the massive use of numbers to Lupe. Poor Anelise had to witness this (as it is the tragedy of being a coblogger and dealing with two beans who actually know each other personally and outside blogging).
<b>
</b> <b>I don’t care about Adam or Warner.</b> I think Adam is a shallow cheese ball (it might be his romance with Juliette because I cringed every time they’re doing romance things) and Warner is a creepy pervert, so I don’t understand why Lupe swoons over Warner. If he’s still a creepy pervert by book three, I might have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">interrogate</span> question Lupe on her fictional boy choices.
<b>
</b> <b>But thanks to Adam, I know about Juliette as a person, so that’s a plus.</b> <b>Does this mean I care about Juliette? No...</b>
If there’s one thing I’ll agree with Lupe on this series, it’s Kenji. He is a precious little bean who deserves so much more page time than he got.
There are a lot of birds. So many birds and no explanation (not even a little). I like metaphors and all, but I still don’t get the concept of a million birds mentioned throughout the book, and Lupe isn’t too helpful. I have to go wallow in misery and torture myself some more.
I’ll be reading the rest of the series for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>It’s Lupe’s fault</li>
<li>Kenji the precious bean</li>
<li>Why are there so many birds</li>
<li>Mainly it’s just for the sake of Lupe</li>
<li>It brought my reviewing soul back I think</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/shatter-me-by-tahereh-mafi-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b>Let’s be honest here: she gets the better deal.</b> This trilogy and I will have a strong love/hate relationship that knows no bounds because all I wanted to do was:
<ul>
<li>Throw my iPad at Lupe if she shows herself (not literally)</li>
<li>Hug the book</li>
<li>Die of laughter</li>
<li>Stop torturing myself</li>
<li>Repeat</li>
</ul>
<i>Shatter Me</i> is straight up the alley of everything I will read because a character who kills anything they touch is a golden novel. It’s like King Midas’s curse gone completely wrong.
But unfortunately, it’s my cup of tea with way too much sugar and other weird flavors.
<b>
</b> <b>There is a massive amount of numbers.</b> The first 5-6 chapters had my eyes crying because 1) I really hate numbers, 2) numbers just remind me of math, 3) I don’t like math, 4) it reminds me of Calculus, which went POORLY (AKA failed the final with a giant fish flop) and 5) I think I’m allergic to numbers.
<b>
</b> <b>There is also a lot of strikeouts.</b> Honestly, I can’t complain, because I use strikeouts on my own blog and if I say I hated them I would be contradicting myself. I’ve basically learned that strikeouts take up space and are sometimes unnecessary, which is the case with <i>Shatter Me</i>.
There are fewer numbers and strikeouts as the book progresses, but they remain. My eyes cry less, and I <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">whine</span> complain less about the massive use of numbers to Lupe. Poor Anelise had to witness this (as it is the tragedy of being a coblogger and dealing with two beans who actually know each other personally and outside blogging).
<b>
</b> <b>I don’t care about Adam or Warner.</b> I think Adam is a shallow cheese ball (it might be his romance with Juliette because I cringed every time they’re doing romance things) and Warner is a creepy pervert, so I don’t understand why Lupe swoons over Warner. If he’s still a creepy pervert by book three, I might have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">interrogate</span> question Lupe on her fictional boy choices.
<b>
</b> <b>But thanks to Adam, I know about Juliette as a person, so that’s a plus.</b> <b>Does this mean I care about Juliette? No...</b>
If there’s one thing I’ll agree with Lupe on this series, it’s Kenji. He is a precious little bean who deserves so much more page time than he got.
There are a lot of birds. So many birds and no explanation (not even a little). I like metaphors and all, but I still don’t get the concept of a million birds mentioned throughout the book, and Lupe isn’t too helpful. I have to go wallow in misery and torture myself some more.
I’ll be reading the rest of the series for the following reasons:
<ul>
<li>It’s Lupe’s fault</li>
<li>Kenji the precious bean</li>
<li>Why are there so many birds</li>
<li>Mainly it’s just for the sake of Lupe</li>
<li>It brought my reviewing soul back I think</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/shatter-me-by-tahereh-mafi-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – John Rambo is the war veteran we all know, he has retired to a small ranch away from the world, where he has created a series of tunnels, he has helped raise Gabrielle and wants her to achieve what he couldn’t in life, with college in her future. When she goes missing, John turns the switch he keeps on the off button, becoming the soldier that will kill anybody in his way, dealing with the traumas of war and not caring about the consequences, he starts a war with the Mexican gang, one that he is prepared to end. Gabrielle is like a daughter to John, he help raise her with her love of horse riding helping their bond, she is ready for college, but the one question she wants more than anything is why her father left her, which sees her go against John’s request to Mexico in search for him. She gets drugged at forced into prostitution, with no way of escaping her captors. Victor and Hugo Martinez are running the operation, they use the girls up and sell them, they use the gang numbers to deal with any unwanted attention, including John and if a girl escapes, they will make them pay. They are pretty much routine Mexican villains though.
Performances – Sylvester Stallone is back in one of his favourite franchises, he does keep John looking a lot more like a true veteran that is still haunted by his nightmares of war, even if he is mumbling his way through the film. Yvette Monreal fills her role with ease, naïve young girl, while both Oscar Jaenada and Sergio Peris-Mencheta don’t put a foot wrong in the villainous roles.
Story – The story here follows a retired calm John Rambo that is called into action when his adoptive daughter gets taken by a gang in Mexico and he will go to any lengths to get his revenge at save her. When it comes to this style of action film, the story doesn’t need to be very deep at all, in fact the basic plot is broken down as war veteran takes on gang who took family member, lots of bodies left lying. We do get glimpses at the idea that John is still dealing with the traumas of his experiences in war, though they are very small, if we didn’t have these, we could have easily have had just another older military person doing the same thing, it didn’t need to be Rambo for the most part. Saying this, it was nice to see Rambo returning to what made his actions popular in the First Blood, with his stealth ability over the countless bullets flying around. This is everything you want and need from a Rambo movie when it comes to the story.
Action/Western – The action in the film does take it time to get going, but when Rambo starts, my word this is one of the most graphic action movies you will see, certain sequences will make John Wick’s kills look like a Disney movie.
Settings – The film does use the Mexico setting for the fish out of water when it comes to John wanting to take the fight to them, so he makes them bring to the fight to him, showing us how deadly he is when he knows the land. The settings are key to the final act of the movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brutal, when it comes to the injuries people were wincing in the cinema at certain moments, they don’t hold back in anyway.
Scene of the Movie – Whole final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain stories don’t seem to get an ending.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most violent action films that you will ever see, it uses the brutal action to highlight Rambo’s military skills and doesn’t hold back in anyway.
Overall: Graphic, Violent, Rambo’s Back.
Performances – Sylvester Stallone is back in one of his favourite franchises, he does keep John looking a lot more like a true veteran that is still haunted by his nightmares of war, even if he is mumbling his way through the film. Yvette Monreal fills her role with ease, naïve young girl, while both Oscar Jaenada and Sergio Peris-Mencheta don’t put a foot wrong in the villainous roles.
Story – The story here follows a retired calm John Rambo that is called into action when his adoptive daughter gets taken by a gang in Mexico and he will go to any lengths to get his revenge at save her. When it comes to this style of action film, the story doesn’t need to be very deep at all, in fact the basic plot is broken down as war veteran takes on gang who took family member, lots of bodies left lying. We do get glimpses at the idea that John is still dealing with the traumas of his experiences in war, though they are very small, if we didn’t have these, we could have easily have had just another older military person doing the same thing, it didn’t need to be Rambo for the most part. Saying this, it was nice to see Rambo returning to what made his actions popular in the First Blood, with his stealth ability over the countless bullets flying around. This is everything you want and need from a Rambo movie when it comes to the story.
Action/Western – The action in the film does take it time to get going, but when Rambo starts, my word this is one of the most graphic action movies you will see, certain sequences will make John Wick’s kills look like a Disney movie.
Settings – The film does use the Mexico setting for the fish out of water when it comes to John wanting to take the fight to them, so he makes them bring to the fight to him, showing us how deadly he is when he knows the land. The settings are key to the final act of the movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brutal, when it comes to the injuries people were wincing in the cinema at certain moments, they don’t hold back in anyway.
Scene of the Movie – Whole final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain stories don’t seem to get an ending.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most violent action films that you will ever see, it uses the brutal action to highlight Rambo’s military skills and doesn’t hold back in anyway.
Overall: Graphic, Violent, Rambo’s Back.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Baywatch (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Mitch Buchannon (Dwayne Johnson) is the head of the elite lifeguards of Baywatch. With over 500 confirmed saves he is a local legend. He and his team keep the beach safe by saving drowning victims and going after the people who threaten the safety of the bay they patrol. His team consists of; Stephanie Holden (Ilfenesh Hadera) the one person who might know the bay as well as Mitch and his second in command, C.J. Parker (Kelly Rohrbach) another veteran lifeguard, recruits Ronnie Greenbaum (Jon Bass) and Summer Quinn (Alexandra Daddario) both out to prove themselves, and the final member is cocky recruit Matt Brody (Zac Efron). When drugs start to wash up on the shores of the bay Mitch and company decide to investigate local business woman Victoria Leeds (Priyanka Chopra). They notice that some odd things seem to be happening around a high end resort she owns. The drugs are wash up right in front of the resort and an unknown fish company begins delivering mysterious blue barrels to the resort. But when a local councilman dies under suspicious circumstances, while wearing the same expensive watch worn by Victoria’s body guards, they decide they must infiltrate Victoria’s club, yacht . They have to come together and get to the bottom of where the drugs are coming from and who is responsible to save they bay they are sworn to protect.
If there was a film that took to the phase “don’t take yourself too seriously” Baywatch would be that film. This Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses, Identity Thief) directed film embraces the cheesiness of the original Baywatch television series in a big way. The cast pokes fun at every aspect of the television series as well as the personas of the real life actors, specifically Johnson and Efron. Johnson’s character is constantly poking fun at Efron’s character by calling him boy band names, in reference to Efron’s status as a teen heartthrob. Another way the movie makes fun of itself is by calling out the fact the Baywatch team not only have the duties of lifeguards on the beach but also doing criminal investigates, going under cover and chasing criminals. There is an ongoing gag throughout the movie where a local police officer, Sgt. Ellerbee (yahya Abdul-Mateen II), reminds Mitch that he is not a police officer, which does not stop him from survelling suspects and looking at coroner reports. Another aspect that I think was done well was that it does not try to reimagine the universe of Baywatch. Rather it takes all the corny one liners and over the top plots and adds some raunchiness to make it new and fresh.
It maybe went a little too far on the cheesy lines and over-acting at times but I think that was the intent of the film. Many of times I found myself shaking my head at how absurd the story was but in the end it was all done in a fun way and again not taking itself too seriously. The action scenes are good not great. The acting fits the style of the movie, it’s bad but presumably on purpose. The CGI in the movie is hit and miss, most notable the underwater scenes are not the best. The movie is also way raunchier that I expected. Some scenes definitely caught me off guard at how far they went. I wouldn’t go into it expecting any amazing acting or plausible plot lines, because you are likely to be let down. This is not for anyone looking for a witty comedy or is not a fan of excessive foul language and some nudity. If you were a fan of the TV series you will probably enjoy the film, notably the cameos by Pamela Anderson (as Casey Jean Parker) and David Hasselhoff (as the mentor).
If there was a film that took to the phase “don’t take yourself too seriously” Baywatch would be that film. This Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses, Identity Thief) directed film embraces the cheesiness of the original Baywatch television series in a big way. The cast pokes fun at every aspect of the television series as well as the personas of the real life actors, specifically Johnson and Efron. Johnson’s character is constantly poking fun at Efron’s character by calling him boy band names, in reference to Efron’s status as a teen heartthrob. Another way the movie makes fun of itself is by calling out the fact the Baywatch team not only have the duties of lifeguards on the beach but also doing criminal investigates, going under cover and chasing criminals. There is an ongoing gag throughout the movie where a local police officer, Sgt. Ellerbee (yahya Abdul-Mateen II), reminds Mitch that he is not a police officer, which does not stop him from survelling suspects and looking at coroner reports. Another aspect that I think was done well was that it does not try to reimagine the universe of Baywatch. Rather it takes all the corny one liners and over the top plots and adds some raunchiness to make it new and fresh.
It maybe went a little too far on the cheesy lines and over-acting at times but I think that was the intent of the film. Many of times I found myself shaking my head at how absurd the story was but in the end it was all done in a fun way and again not taking itself too seriously. The action scenes are good not great. The acting fits the style of the movie, it’s bad but presumably on purpose. The CGI in the movie is hit and miss, most notable the underwater scenes are not the best. The movie is also way raunchier that I expected. Some scenes definitely caught me off guard at how far they went. I wouldn’t go into it expecting any amazing acting or plausible plot lines, because you are likely to be let down. This is not for anyone looking for a witty comedy or is not a fan of excessive foul language and some nudity. If you were a fan of the TV series you will probably enjoy the film, notably the cameos by Pamela Anderson (as Casey Jean Parker) and David Hasselhoff (as the mentor).