Search
Search results
Stratego® Single Player
Games and Entertainment
App
Play the best Strategy game ever! Stratego® Official Single Player from Jumbo is all about good...
Pocket Universe - 3D Gravity Sandbox
Games and Education
9.0
Rate It
App
If you had the power, how would you create the solar system? What would be the size of each planet...
Siren's Call (Dark Tides #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Between desire and love there are some things that can’t stay buried, even in the deep of the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with “Fast and Furious 8” (aka “The Fate of the Furious”)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Before I Let Go in Books
Jan 5, 2018
Easy to read (1 more)
Honest portrayal of mental illness
Lacks full character development (1 more)
Difficult to discern full point
Quick read that falls a little short
When Corey gets the call that her best friend, Kyra, has passed away--falling under the ice in their frigid hometown of Lost Creek, Alaska--she is devastated. Corey has been gone from Lost, as it's known, away at boarding school, corresponding with Kyra only via letters. She was due to visit in a few days and now her best friend is gone. Lost always shunned Kyra because she was bipolar and had maniac episodes. The small, insulated town couldn't understand Kyra's highs and lows. She stood out too much in a place where being different was wrong. But the seven months that Corey's been away has been long enough for the town of Lost to turn on her and now deem her an outsider. Since Corey's departure, Lost has suddenly embraced Kyra, though Corey isn't sure why. Even worse, they are calling Kyra's death meant to be, her time. They've rallied around in her death and they want nothing to do with Corey. Kyra always said she would wait for Corey to return: why didn't she?
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. It's billed as a YA mystery, and I can see its drama appealing more to teens, perhaps, but I could never really fully tell what the book was truly about or what it was trying to be. It has weird unexplained mystical elements thrown in--think Carol Goodman or Jennifer McMahon, but they aren't fully fleshed out or well-explained. I believe the intent is to slowly build up suspense and creep you out, but they don't slowly build up (they sort of start out full force and stay there, or almost trickle away... it's hard to explain) and they never really seem to have a purpose. So it's just one element of the book that leaves you hanging. The ending, too, leaves you with little closure.
The novel is told mainly from Corey's perspective, but we also get weird snippets told as if in a play format (like we're hearing from the town), but those aren't fully formed either. It's very strange. I liked Corey, but she comes in angry at her town and we don't get a lot of explanation into her character or real background into her friendship with Kyra, despite being assured that they were best friends up until Corey left.
It's sad, because I was really drawn to the character of Kyra (you get flashbacks to the girls' friendship and life before Kyra's death). I thought the book did a fairly good job of portraying mental illness and honestly Kyra--despite her death--seemed to be the most fully formed character in many ways. She implores Corey not to fix her, that she's not a puzzle to solve, and she discusses her manic spells in a very mature and very thoughtful way. It's one of the reasons that I'm keeping a three-star rating for this one; I'm hoping the portrayal of her illness can help and inform others.
There are also a variety of relationships portrayed in the novel--albeit, I thought, rather superficially--lesbian, pansexual, asexual, gay, etc. I wouldn't say any relationship is at all fully delved into, but I appreciate that Nijkamp at least wanted to try to be representative with her characters.
The other thing is that Nijkamp's books are just so darn easy to read. I remember that about This Is Where It Ends, too. I read almost this entire novel in one setting. Her writing draws you in so easily, even if you don't always agree with what you're reading, or if you wish for more character development. You could pick this up and fly through it in a day.
In the end, this certainly wasn't what I expected. The strange mystical elements seemed out of place and they, along with most of the characters, weren't really fleshed out. I was a fan of how easy the story was to read and the mental illness portrayal, though, as well as how easy the story was to read. I was drawn to the character of Kyra and wished I could have learned even more about her. The story was compelling and Nijkamp did an excellent job making you feel the cold of the Alaskan setting and the similar coldness of the townspeople. At the same time, while I could certainly see a small town being incredibly close-minded (and they were), some of the other plot points seemed a little overboard. A quick read, especially for teens.
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. It's billed as a YA mystery, and I can see its drama appealing more to teens, perhaps, but I could never really fully tell what the book was truly about or what it was trying to be. It has weird unexplained mystical elements thrown in--think Carol Goodman or Jennifer McMahon, but they aren't fully fleshed out or well-explained. I believe the intent is to slowly build up suspense and creep you out, but they don't slowly build up (they sort of start out full force and stay there, or almost trickle away... it's hard to explain) and they never really seem to have a purpose. So it's just one element of the book that leaves you hanging. The ending, too, leaves you with little closure.
The novel is told mainly from Corey's perspective, but we also get weird snippets told as if in a play format (like we're hearing from the town), but those aren't fully formed either. It's very strange. I liked Corey, but she comes in angry at her town and we don't get a lot of explanation into her character or real background into her friendship with Kyra, despite being assured that they were best friends up until Corey left.
It's sad, because I was really drawn to the character of Kyra (you get flashbacks to the girls' friendship and life before Kyra's death). I thought the book did a fairly good job of portraying mental illness and honestly Kyra--despite her death--seemed to be the most fully formed character in many ways. She implores Corey not to fix her, that she's not a puzzle to solve, and she discusses her manic spells in a very mature and very thoughtful way. It's one of the reasons that I'm keeping a three-star rating for this one; I'm hoping the portrayal of her illness can help and inform others.
There are also a variety of relationships portrayed in the novel--albeit, I thought, rather superficially--lesbian, pansexual, asexual, gay, etc. I wouldn't say any relationship is at all fully delved into, but I appreciate that Nijkamp at least wanted to try to be representative with her characters.
The other thing is that Nijkamp's books are just so darn easy to read. I remember that about This Is Where It Ends, too. I read almost this entire novel in one setting. Her writing draws you in so easily, even if you don't always agree with what you're reading, or if you wish for more character development. You could pick this up and fly through it in a day.
In the end, this certainly wasn't what I expected. The strange mystical elements seemed out of place and they, along with most of the characters, weren't really fleshed out. I was a fan of how easy the story was to read and the mental illness portrayal, though, as well as how easy the story was to read. I was drawn to the character of Kyra and wished I could have learned even more about her. The story was compelling and Nijkamp did an excellent job making you feel the cold of the Alaskan setting and the similar coldness of the townspeople. At the same time, while I could certainly see a small town being incredibly close-minded (and they were), some of the other plot points seemed a little overboard. A quick read, especially for teens.
Puke Flyswatter (7 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980) in Movies
Sep 12, 2017
Incredible special effects for the time (1 more)
Story writing and characters
The Force is strong with this one
Contains spoilers, click to show
Most fans argue over which of its ongoing episodes, is the best in the Star Wars saga. The Empire Strikes Back took a darker approach than its predecessor in delivering the story of the Rebellion's fight to bring peace and freedom to the galaxy by destroying the Empire who now rule with far more than just iron fist, having snatched its power from the dead hands of the Old Republic. This in my opinion, is what made it not only the best of the saga, but the best science fiction movie of all time and more controversially- one of the best movies ever made; an accolade that has still to be taken by any other movie of the genre to date.
George Lucas, ("the daddy" and brains behind the series of stories of intergalactic war and oppression), had reportedly suffered from exhaustion to the point of near breakdown- even suffering a near heart attack and so decided for the sake of his health and mental well-being not to helm this project which led to Irvin Kershner taking the reins instead.
Kershner's change in approach is apparent throughout the movie and even from the opening scene on Hoth- the barren ice planet- there is a palpably hollow and sombre overall feel which is more than likely deliberate so as to reflect the apparent futility and hopelessness of the protagonists’ struggle. This cleverly generated more empathy toward the characters, meaning the viewer became more invested in the outcome of the story.
The scope and scale of each scene is also cleverly used to give the viewer insight into the characters' state of mind and the choice in lighting and colour (or lack thereof) to deliver more impact and focus on the subject matter in each scene.
As far as story writing and script go, this is also miles ahead of the first and brilliant instalment of the saga. This was apparently due to George Lucas not being happy with the direction of the original draft of the screenplay and being forced to write a further two drafts for the movie following the death of the original screenplay author- the renowned Leigh Brackett who sadly died losing her battle with cancer. Lucas felt it necessary to then bring in Lawrence Kasdan to complete the writing of the screenplay, Kasdan would also go on to pen the screenplays for Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Return Of The Jedi, Star Wars VII The Force Awakens (as co-writer) and is also currently penning the screenplay for the upcoming Han Solo...solo movie. His input and impact on Empire took the saga from the swashbuckling heroic scenes of A New Hope to the almost World War-esque style in which characters are somewhat downtrodden and clearly showing the negative psychological effects on their personalities that are associated with any and every war. This set it apart from A New Hope which, despite the deaths of countless poor and innocent Jawas, inhabitants of Alderaan and Obi-Wan Kenobi, still managed to keep an optimistic outlook which while being an immensely fun and thrilling watch, did not do much in the way of drawing the viewer in and having a connection with the characters. This did not in any way ruin my enjoyment of the movie, I was a kid after all, but upon watching Empire for the first time, I was introduced to a new concept in cinema for me- one where the heroes do not always win, but who still carry on the fight no matter how emotionally scarred or beaten they may be. As a kid, this was so much more of a compelling and exciting movie as it was near impossible to guess where the story would lead and what the future would hold for the then trilogy.
Another highly positive aspect, is that the viewer did not necessarily need to have watched the previous movie and could jump straight into the story, able to enjoy it as each of the characters and the movie’s histories are cleverly re-introduced and explained without the use of exhausting flashbacks or back stories, effectively allowing it to serve as a standalone movie.
For people- who for some reason unbeknownst to me- that are not fans of the genre, this remains as a compelling, well-written and visually stunning piece of movie-making that still stands the test of time and one that anyone of any age can enjoy.
George Lucas, ("the daddy" and brains behind the series of stories of intergalactic war and oppression), had reportedly suffered from exhaustion to the point of near breakdown- even suffering a near heart attack and so decided for the sake of his health and mental well-being not to helm this project which led to Irvin Kershner taking the reins instead.
Kershner's change in approach is apparent throughout the movie and even from the opening scene on Hoth- the barren ice planet- there is a palpably hollow and sombre overall feel which is more than likely deliberate so as to reflect the apparent futility and hopelessness of the protagonists’ struggle. This cleverly generated more empathy toward the characters, meaning the viewer became more invested in the outcome of the story.
The scope and scale of each scene is also cleverly used to give the viewer insight into the characters' state of mind and the choice in lighting and colour (or lack thereof) to deliver more impact and focus on the subject matter in each scene.
As far as story writing and script go, this is also miles ahead of the first and brilliant instalment of the saga. This was apparently due to George Lucas not being happy with the direction of the original draft of the screenplay and being forced to write a further two drafts for the movie following the death of the original screenplay author- the renowned Leigh Brackett who sadly died losing her battle with cancer. Lucas felt it necessary to then bring in Lawrence Kasdan to complete the writing of the screenplay, Kasdan would also go on to pen the screenplays for Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Return Of The Jedi, Star Wars VII The Force Awakens (as co-writer) and is also currently penning the screenplay for the upcoming Han Solo...solo movie. His input and impact on Empire took the saga from the swashbuckling heroic scenes of A New Hope to the almost World War-esque style in which characters are somewhat downtrodden and clearly showing the negative psychological effects on their personalities that are associated with any and every war. This set it apart from A New Hope which, despite the deaths of countless poor and innocent Jawas, inhabitants of Alderaan and Obi-Wan Kenobi, still managed to keep an optimistic outlook which while being an immensely fun and thrilling watch, did not do much in the way of drawing the viewer in and having a connection with the characters. This did not in any way ruin my enjoyment of the movie, I was a kid after all, but upon watching Empire for the first time, I was introduced to a new concept in cinema for me- one where the heroes do not always win, but who still carry on the fight no matter how emotionally scarred or beaten they may be. As a kid, this was so much more of a compelling and exciting movie as it was near impossible to guess where the story would lead and what the future would hold for the then trilogy.
Another highly positive aspect, is that the viewer did not necessarily need to have watched the previous movie and could jump straight into the story, able to enjoy it as each of the characters and the movie’s histories are cleverly re-introduced and explained without the use of exhausting flashbacks or back stories, effectively allowing it to serve as a standalone movie.
For people- who for some reason unbeknownst to me- that are not fans of the genre, this remains as a compelling, well-written and visually stunning piece of movie-making that still stands the test of time and one that anyone of any age can enjoy.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
May 31, 2019 (Updated May 31, 2019)
Well, I liked it!
Before heading into Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I saw a lot of wildly mixed reviews online. People were either hating it or loving it, with nobody really feeling anything in-between. Even those cinema goers who were fully prepared for nothing more than a bunch of big monsters fighting alongside insignificant human bystanders were coming away from it fuming. Well, I’m happy to say that I’m putting myself firmly in the ‘loved it’ category, although I do understand and appreciate a lot of the issues that the haters have with it.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Transformers being made into a live action film sounds like every fan's dream come true on paper, but throw Michael Bay into the equation and you lose a good portion of that audience. Bay is a director who tends to rely solely on action sequences. He's known for creating superb and intense scenes in his films, but they always rely on heavy explosions or pure destruction. That's not to say that's a bad thing, but it's hard to name a memorable scene in a Michael Bay film that doesn't include those elements. Everything else in his films (the story, the dialogue, the initial scenes that bridge the gap between each action sequence, etc) all seem to be lacking that extra spark his action sequences have. So those doubts carried over to Transformers and Bay's version seems to be more enjoyable for people who aren't rabid fans of the franchise.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
