Search
Search results
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Pet peeve
#petsematary is a dire #remake of an already bad #film. Its drab, lifeless & should never of been #reanimated. I had high hopes for this film because it feels like its been a while since the last mainstream horror movie so as I felt genuinely excited but after the first 15 minutes this feeling had quickly been replaced with sheer #fear there was still well over an hour left to go till i could leave. Before we hit the negatives ill give you my positives that saved the movie from being a total walk out. First - #johnlithgow is great as always but mostly wasted largely because of the terrible script he's been given to work with. Second - the running theme of #death is great & the film portrays how all living things fear it so much rather well (it also handles #grieving & guilt #trauma surrounding #death well too but its ultimately far to brief). Now the bad - the movie feels nasty & cheap to look at visually, cgi is bad, make up design is lazy, the camerawork feels awkward & strangely zoomed in just a bit to close to everything, theres weird #90s era motion blur on everything fast moving, acting is laughable/cheesy & scenes go on far to long as does build up to key scenes that have an anticlimactic pay off. If you've seen the original or the trailer for that matter the film becomes highly predictable killing all suspense & what little atmosphere the film conjures up is ruined by naff & bland set design. I honestly cant recomend anyone wasting their time on this highly forgettable film unless your a big fan of really #adorable #cats then this one in this is a clear 10/10 on the #cute scale. An uninspired lazy cash grab & there are a million horror films out there that tell almost the same story way better. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #stephenking #scary #cat #animal #pet #classic #retro #cultclassic #80s #filmbuff #filmcritic #zombie
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Cold as ice
#coldpursuit tries to hit like an avalanche but ends up being disappointing & forgettable like #snowflakes falling on to wet ground. Cold Pursuit is a remake of the #Norwegian film #inorderofdisappearance which received extremely good reviews across the board begging the question why did it need to be remade? & the straight answer to that is no it didn't. #liamnesson plays #NelsCoxman he's quite an interesting character being the town s #hero forced to seek revenge for the death of his son, problem is Nesson plays him just has he does any character now days making him not only #boring but unlikable & its hard to sympathise with him at all. Overall the film is a huge rip off of the far superior #WindRiver & also #Fargo trying its very hardest to be a #coenbrothers movie but failing at everything especially the #humour. Tone wise its a mess with #Nesson taking everything far to seriously while the film tries its hardest to be quirky & #funny. Humour that would work well in a Norwegian movie simply fails here & at times stops the movie dead or ruins the flow/serious tension its created. #tombateman is probably the best character here but even he feels like his character is an audition for the next #Joker in a #DC #batman movie. Essentially one big statement on #racism, the fight over territory & how the benefits of having & decent upbringing shapes our future Cold Pursuit has a decent message in there somewhere its just poorly handled. I did however like the score & there are sprinklings of nice production & visuals too which helped to hold my attention. All in all Cold Pursuit is simply just 'FINE' nothing more nothing less but when there are better films out there aka Wind River, Fargo or even the original fine just doesn't really cut it. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic #racist #winter #cold #revenge #weekend #weekendvibes #nordicnoir
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the public’s desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
Troublemakers: How a Generation of Silicon Valley Upstarts Invented the Future
Book
THE GRIPPING TALE OF THE EARLY FRONTIER DAYS OF SILICON VALLEY FROM ACCLAIMED HISTORIAN LESLIE...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do, and How to Change
6.0
Rate It
Book
In "The Power of Habit", award-winning "New York Times" business reporter Charles Duhigg takes us to...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Point Break (1991) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Not Bad
My buddy who recommended Point Break asked for my thoughts almost immediately after I watched it. In a word: Fun. No, it's not going to blow your mind or give you chills, but it's a great film to watch if you're just trying to have a good time. It's like Fast and the Furious before Fast and the Furious became Fast and the Furious. Oh yeah, and with surfer dudes.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Predictably Gruesome, But Entertaining
Child's Play is a 2019 slasher/horror movie directed by Lars Klevberg and written by Tyler Burton Smith. It was produced by Orion Pictures, KatzSmith Productions, and BRON Creative and distributed by United Artists Releasing. The film stars Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, Brian Tyree Henry, and Mark Hamill.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.