Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Edgar Wright’s Haunting Love Letter to the Swinging Sixties.
A young 21st-century teen walks in her nightclothes down a darkened alley emerging into a bustling 60’s Soho street across from a theatre showing “Thunderball”. She enters the Cafe de Paris with a reflection mimicking her actions but showing a very different girl. So it was that the trailer for Edgar Wright’s “Last Night in Soho” hit earlier this year.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Did You See Melody? in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Yikes. This was bad, really bad. This started off as a buddy read with my reading pal Nicki @ The Secret Library, but she couldnt even finish this one
and I dont blame her!
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Darren (1599 KP) rated The A Plate (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The A Plate starts by introducing us to Jay Roth (Jacobsen) a car salesman working for Stevens Motors, Jay sees himself as one of the best in the business and uses his position to pick up woman but what he really wants it to be the manager which is currently filled by Dick Stevens (McMurray). When Dick gets cheating on his wife Candice (Barnes) she wants divorce which includes taking the dealership.
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Front Runner starts after Gary Hart (Jackman) has missed out on the Vice-President position, four-years later in 1987, Gary is running for the Presidency, he is the clear favourite too, his team which includes Bill Dixon (Simmons) knows it is only a matter of time before he wins, while the opposition team is looking for weakness in his reputation.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
The Escape Manifesto: Quit Your Corporate Job - Do Something Different!
Book
Rob, Dom and Mikey were fed up with the corporate treadmill. When they decided to change careers,...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel in TV
Feb 22, 2021
Scarily glamourises internet sleuthing
Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel is the latest stylised true crime documentary from Netflix, and it’s a pretty scary watch, but not in the way you’d expect from something that has been advertised as a supernatural murder mystery.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Greedy men + Dinosaurs = Lunch!
I’ve really had a rollercoaster of emotions on this one. As a general fan of dinosaurs running riot, since I saw the brilliant original in 1993, I was pretty disillusioned by the teaser trailer for this one: all over-the-top CGI. But as the lights dimmed and the Universal logo faded to ominous sonar sounds, the hairs stood up again and I thought J.A. Bayona (“A Monster Calls“) *might* deliver something really special here. Ultimately though, I left the theatre disappointed… but only slightly so.
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!