Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scary Movie 4 (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anna Faris returns as Cindy Campbell in the fourth installment of the popular “Scary Movie” franchise and your favorite horror films will never be the same.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Those People in Books
Apr 20, 2019
Enthralling Read
I must admit that I was sucked into Those People by Louise Candlish as soon as I read the synopsis. I had a feeling this was going to be a good read, and I was correct. I found this book to be very interesting.
The plot of Those People really held my attention. Basically, the short of it is, Lowland Way, the road where the story takes place, is full of rich people. When neighbors Darren and Jodie inherit a house from a relative, they make their neighbors' lives a nightmare by being loud, playing loud music all day and night, taking up a lot of space with their car business, and not following the neighborly rules of being good neighbors. When a murder occurs, the rich folk of Lowland Way think it will be an open and shut case and that their lives will return to normal. However, nothing could be further from the truth. After reading about Darren and Jodie, I could definitely relate to the feelings of the people on Lowland Way because I've had some pretty bad neighbors. Luckily, they've never been as bad as Darren and Jodie though. I found the plot to be extreme, but it was believable. Sometimes people will go too far if they are driven mad enough (not that I agreed with their actions) as was the case in Those People. There were a few good plot twists. However, I felt like I need more closure at the end of the book. Those People is not part of a series, so I feel like I will never get answers. It's more of a speculative ending which I am never a fan of.
I did enjoy reading about the lives of the characters in Those People. I felt they were all written perfectly and were fleshed out enough to feel like real people instead of just characters in a book. I did find many of the characters to be snobby especially Naomi. She was written really well, but I felt her character had a giant chip on her shoulder. Emma was a complete basket case. I get that she just had a baby, but some of her actions were quite extreme. However, I do know someone like her in real life. Sissy was my overall favorite character. She was the oldest, and she also had the most to lose especially as Darren and Jodie's actions were causing her to lose her bed and breakfast business. My heart really went out to her. I did think Darren and Jodie made for great baddies. I like how Darren would keep his cool for the most part when the others of Lowland Way would lose their cool towards him. For the most part, I felt that females in this book overshadowed the men with the exception of Darren and Jodie. The females seemed to be the stronger characters. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing though.
The pacing for Those People always stayed consistent and held my attention throughout. In fact, I never wanted to put this book down because I was so entranced with what was going on and what would happen next.
Trigger warnings for Those People include violence, death, profanity, and alcohol and drug use.
Overall, Those People is a really good read. I was consistently absorbed by all the drama happening at Lowland Way. The characters were written well, and the plot definitely held my attention. I would definitely recommend Those People by Louise Candlish to everyone aged 18+ especially those who have ever had to deal with some horrible neighbors.
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of Those People by Louise Candlish in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot of Those People really held my attention. Basically, the short of it is, Lowland Way, the road where the story takes place, is full of rich people. When neighbors Darren and Jodie inherit a house from a relative, they make their neighbors' lives a nightmare by being loud, playing loud music all day and night, taking up a lot of space with their car business, and not following the neighborly rules of being good neighbors. When a murder occurs, the rich folk of Lowland Way think it will be an open and shut case and that their lives will return to normal. However, nothing could be further from the truth. After reading about Darren and Jodie, I could definitely relate to the feelings of the people on Lowland Way because I've had some pretty bad neighbors. Luckily, they've never been as bad as Darren and Jodie though. I found the plot to be extreme, but it was believable. Sometimes people will go too far if they are driven mad enough (not that I agreed with their actions) as was the case in Those People. There were a few good plot twists. However, I felt like I need more closure at the end of the book. Those People is not part of a series, so I feel like I will never get answers. It's more of a speculative ending which I am never a fan of.
I did enjoy reading about the lives of the characters in Those People. I felt they were all written perfectly and were fleshed out enough to feel like real people instead of just characters in a book. I did find many of the characters to be snobby especially Naomi. She was written really well, but I felt her character had a giant chip on her shoulder. Emma was a complete basket case. I get that she just had a baby, but some of her actions were quite extreme. However, I do know someone like her in real life. Sissy was my overall favorite character. She was the oldest, and she also had the most to lose especially as Darren and Jodie's actions were causing her to lose her bed and breakfast business. My heart really went out to her. I did think Darren and Jodie made for great baddies. I like how Darren would keep his cool for the most part when the others of Lowland Way would lose their cool towards him. For the most part, I felt that females in this book overshadowed the men with the exception of Darren and Jodie. The females seemed to be the stronger characters. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing though.
The pacing for Those People always stayed consistent and held my attention throughout. In fact, I never wanted to put this book down because I was so entranced with what was going on and what would happen next.
Trigger warnings for Those People include violence, death, profanity, and alcohol and drug use.
Overall, Those People is a really good read. I was consistently absorbed by all the drama happening at Lowland Way. The characters were written well, and the plot definitely held my attention. I would definitely recommend Those People by Louise Candlish to everyone aged 18+ especially those who have ever had to deal with some horrible neighbors.
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of Those People by Louise Candlish in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Debbiereadsbook (1107 KP) rated Snowed In: Ross and Ashton in Books
Feb 4, 2019
kinda fell into this one, loved it!
Totally unprepared for the snow storm, Ash drives to his new job. Or at least, he tries to. He runs his car off the road and is found by Ross. The same Ross who broke his heart in college. But Ross doesn't recognise Ash straight away, although he thinks him familiar. When the penny finally drops, all the heartbreak that both suffered all those years ago comes rushing back, along with the intense chemistry they had. Can they survive the monster storm? Could they try again?
I REALLY enjoyed this! It was a great easy read, and I mean that in a good way!
Sometimes, you just need a book that isn't too complicate, not to taxing on the old brain. A book that throws enough hints at you that you know there was something that happened, but you aren't sure what. A book that pulls you in, and doesn't let you in for the next hour or so, the 90 pages that this book is.
Ash knows his rescuer straight away but it takes time for Ross to know it's Ash. But Ross hasn't seen Ash since college, and Ash has been dropping into Ross' social media from time to time, cos he's a sucker for punishment.
What I particularly liked about this book, was how much BOTH men were affected by what happened all those years ago. For very different reasons. But they are different men now. I'm not going into spoiler, really I'm not, but it's great reading the same situation from both sides, and seeing both of them realise just what could have been.
It's not overly explicit but that's not needed here. The whole book takes place over a matter of HOURS so there really isn't a lot of hot and steamy stuff. It is sexy though, what's here.
I just FELL into this book and I really REALLY enjoyed it!
Ah sod it! I wrote 4 stars at the top of the page when I wrote this review, but now I'm typing it up? Can't figure out a single reason why!
So!
5 full and snow covered stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I REALLY enjoyed this! It was a great easy read, and I mean that in a good way!
Sometimes, you just need a book that isn't too complicate, not to taxing on the old brain. A book that throws enough hints at you that you know there was something that happened, but you aren't sure what. A book that pulls you in, and doesn't let you in for the next hour or so, the 90 pages that this book is.
Ash knows his rescuer straight away but it takes time for Ross to know it's Ash. But Ross hasn't seen Ash since college, and Ash has been dropping into Ross' social media from time to time, cos he's a sucker for punishment.
What I particularly liked about this book, was how much BOTH men were affected by what happened all those years ago. For very different reasons. But they are different men now. I'm not going into spoiler, really I'm not, but it's great reading the same situation from both sides, and seeing both of them realise just what could have been.
It's not overly explicit but that's not needed here. The whole book takes place over a matter of HOURS so there really isn't a lot of hot and steamy stuff. It is sexy though, what's here.
I just FELL into this book and I really REALLY enjoyed it!
Ah sod it! I wrote 4 stars at the top of the page when I wrote this review, but now I'm typing it up? Can't figure out a single reason why!
So!
5 full and snow covered stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cars (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The technical wizards at Pixar are back with a new feature film which continues their domination of the animated film genre.
With the huge success of their films The Incredibles as well as Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. and the Toy Story films, it would be easy to think that the studio might be at a creative crossroads. When recent news around the industry involved the end of their deal with Disney and subsequent new deal with the company after a period of free agency as well as delays on their new project, some began to wonder what audiences would see if their next outing.
Thankfully Cars continues the amazing run of success for the studio and sets the bar even higher for animated films to follow.
The film follows the exploits of rookie racing car Lightning MC Queen (Owen Wilson), who is the hotshot rookie attempting to be the first rookie in history to win the Piston Cup title.
As Lightening dreams of winning the prize and in doing so, a hefty sponsorship with the big oil company, he decides to ignore the advice of his crew which causes him to end up in a three way tie for the title.
In order to resolve the tie a special race is to be held a week later in California between the three winners. En route, Lightning ignores the advice of his driver Mack (John Ratzenberger), and in a series of mishaps ends up alone in the desolate
town of Radiator Springs. As if this was not enough trouble for Lightning, he is forced by the local judge Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), to perform community service to complete the damage he caused to the road upon his arrival.
Faced with the prospect of losing time needed to get to and prepare for the race, the selfish Lightning does his best to alienate the local townsfolk including the local tow truck Tom Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), who like all the locals do their best to befriend him.
Along the way, Lightning learns the values of friendship, teamwork and community as he attempts to find the true meaning of the term “Winner”.
Graphically the film is amazing as the amount of CGI rendering that went into the film is said to be so extensive, it literally taxed the computers at Pixar to their limits. That is clear as the detail level and complexity of the film is staggering. You fully believe that this world populated entirely by machines exists.
There is a lot of humor in the film as well and more than enough nods that will appeal to older viewers yet may be over the heads of younger viewers.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that with a running time of slightly over two hours, it does tend to drag in a few places. My nephew and his friend became restless about 50 minutes into the film which made me think that the running time may be to long for some younger children to sit through and that the film might have been better served by trimming about 30 minutes as there were segments that while visually appealing, did not really need to be there.
That being said, Cars is a true delight and proof that once again, Pixar is the undisputed champion of animated films.
With the huge success of their films The Incredibles as well as Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. and the Toy Story films, it would be easy to think that the studio might be at a creative crossroads. When recent news around the industry involved the end of their deal with Disney and subsequent new deal with the company after a period of free agency as well as delays on their new project, some began to wonder what audiences would see if their next outing.
Thankfully Cars continues the amazing run of success for the studio and sets the bar even higher for animated films to follow.
The film follows the exploits of rookie racing car Lightning MC Queen (Owen Wilson), who is the hotshot rookie attempting to be the first rookie in history to win the Piston Cup title.
As Lightening dreams of winning the prize and in doing so, a hefty sponsorship with the big oil company, he decides to ignore the advice of his crew which causes him to end up in a three way tie for the title.
In order to resolve the tie a special race is to be held a week later in California between the three winners. En route, Lightning ignores the advice of his driver Mack (John Ratzenberger), and in a series of mishaps ends up alone in the desolate
town of Radiator Springs. As if this was not enough trouble for Lightning, he is forced by the local judge Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), to perform community service to complete the damage he caused to the road upon his arrival.
Faced with the prospect of losing time needed to get to and prepare for the race, the selfish Lightning does his best to alienate the local townsfolk including the local tow truck Tom Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), who like all the locals do their best to befriend him.
Along the way, Lightning learns the values of friendship, teamwork and community as he attempts to find the true meaning of the term “Winner”.
Graphically the film is amazing as the amount of CGI rendering that went into the film is said to be so extensive, it literally taxed the computers at Pixar to their limits. That is clear as the detail level and complexity of the film is staggering. You fully believe that this world populated entirely by machines exists.
There is a lot of humor in the film as well and more than enough nods that will appeal to older viewers yet may be over the heads of younger viewers.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that with a running time of slightly over two hours, it does tend to drag in a few places. My nephew and his friend became restless about 50 minutes into the film which made me think that the running time may be to long for some younger children to sit through and that the film might have been better served by trimming about 30 minutes as there were segments that while visually appealing, did not really need to be there.
That being said, Cars is a true delight and proof that once again, Pixar is the undisputed champion of animated films.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Feb 13, 2018 (Updated Feb 14, 2018)
My inner 17 year old self loved DEADPOOL. It had everything that any 17 year old boy would want in a movie - sex, violence and a smart-alec attitude, all wrapped up in an unapologetic package that reveled in - and did not shy away from - these traits.
At this point in the review, you are either saying "f#*$ yeah! this movie is for me!" or you have stopped reading, will never see this movie, so it doesn't really matter what I write.
For the rest of you still reading, grab your raunchy comedy sense of humor and head to the theaters to see DEADPOOL, you won't be sorry. DP pokes fun at itself and the genre it represents right from the get-go. Get there early for the opening credits, they aren't quite like any opening credits you have seen before.
First time director Tim Miller cut his teeth on animated short films (most notably, the Oscar nominated animated short, GOPHER BROKE) and it shows in this film. DEADPOOL plays like a 100 minute Road Runner cartoon with star Ryan Reynolds constant patter sounding more and more like the RoadRunner's "Beep, Beep" as the film progresses.
Don't get me wrong, Reynolds does a nice job as the lead and brings humor and charm to the character, but after awhile it just didn't matter as it was just an excuse for fights, car chases, mayhem, violence and explosions - and I didn't mind one bit.
There are some interesting characters in this film, most notably played by Morena Baccarin and T.J. MIller - two actors who I felt FINALLY got decent roles to play, but they, too, take a back seat to the action and smart-assery in this film Even the great Leslie Uggams is brought in as an old, blind, smartass, and she acquits herself quite well.
The smartest things the filmmakers did with this movie is that they did not back away from what they were trying to do - make a superhero movie that was a mash-up of THE AVENGERS and DIRTY GRANDPA, they didn't flinch from this mission, which is why it is successful. They accomplished what the set out to accomplish - make a Superhero movie that any teenage boy would love.
7 (out of 10) stars - 10 out of 10, if you listen to my inner 17 year old - and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
At this point in the review, you are either saying "f#*$ yeah! this movie is for me!" or you have stopped reading, will never see this movie, so it doesn't really matter what I write.
For the rest of you still reading, grab your raunchy comedy sense of humor and head to the theaters to see DEADPOOL, you won't be sorry. DP pokes fun at itself and the genre it represents right from the get-go. Get there early for the opening credits, they aren't quite like any opening credits you have seen before.
First time director Tim Miller cut his teeth on animated short films (most notably, the Oscar nominated animated short, GOPHER BROKE) and it shows in this film. DEADPOOL plays like a 100 minute Road Runner cartoon with star Ryan Reynolds constant patter sounding more and more like the RoadRunner's "Beep, Beep" as the film progresses.
Don't get me wrong, Reynolds does a nice job as the lead and brings humor and charm to the character, but after awhile it just didn't matter as it was just an excuse for fights, car chases, mayhem, violence and explosions - and I didn't mind one bit.
There are some interesting characters in this film, most notably played by Morena Baccarin and T.J. MIller - two actors who I felt FINALLY got decent roles to play, but they, too, take a back seat to the action and smart-assery in this film Even the great Leslie Uggams is brought in as an old, blind, smartass, and she acquits herself quite well.
The smartest things the filmmakers did with this movie is that they did not back away from what they were trying to do - make a superhero movie that was a mash-up of THE AVENGERS and DIRTY GRANDPA, they didn't flinch from this mission, which is why it is successful. They accomplished what the set out to accomplish - make a Superhero movie that any teenage boy would love.
7 (out of 10) stars - 10 out of 10, if you listen to my inner 17 year old - and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Forever Layla in Books
Apr 3, 2019
David Foster is 17 years old, a few days away from being 18, on the road as a sound guy for his best friend, Michael's Band, and his life is about to change forever.
Layla is 24. She's in town from California and when she see David for the first time, like this, she's not quite sure what to do.
How does Layla know so much about David? Did his friends put her up to this as a prank for his birthday? But Layla knows things he would never tell Michael. So as David gets to know Layla better and as she gets to know the David she already knows in a whole other way, they form a bond that is not so easily broken.
Forever Layla is a story of love, happiness, trust, and science all wrapped up in one. David is living in 1994 and Layla shows up in his life from 2014. David is the kind of man every girl dreams of meeting, but Layla is afraid to mess up his life what she already knows. How can she make a life with him without giving away too much about who she is and how and why is now in his life.
This is a very well written book and it was very difficult to put down.
I loved the story of David and Layla. I was rooting for them to be together Forever as the title suggests. Their love was intense and amazing. To have a love like that with someone that you are willing to give up so much of yourself in order to make them happy and make their dreams come true.
Layla is 24. She's in town from California and when she see David for the first time, like this, she's not quite sure what to do.
How does Layla know so much about David? Did his friends put her up to this as a prank for his birthday? But Layla knows things he would never tell Michael. So as David gets to know Layla better and as she gets to know the David she already knows in a whole other way, they form a bond that is not so easily broken.
Forever Layla is a story of love, happiness, trust, and science all wrapped up in one. David is living in 1994 and Layla shows up in his life from 2014. David is the kind of man every girl dreams of meeting, but Layla is afraid to mess up his life what she already knows. How can she make a life with him without giving away too much about who she is and how and why is now in his life.
This is a very well written book and it was very difficult to put down.
I loved the story of David and Layla. I was rooting for them to be together Forever as the title suggests. Their love was intense and amazing. To have a love like that with someone that you are willing to give up so much of yourself in order to make them happy and make their dreams come true.