Search
Search results
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.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
I wanted to like it.
Ignoring every entry other than Carpenter's original, 2018's Halloween attempts to reboot the Franchise in anew direction.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
JT (287 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Ethan Hawke has been here once before, and when you look deep into the mechanics of The Purge it almost mirrors the remake of Assault on Precinct 13. Director James DeMonaco who wrote the script for the latter has taken the premise of that film and given it a more personal feel, something which we could resonate with.
The year is 2022, Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin who’s made his wealth by selling security systems that help protect people against the yearly purge. The purge is a twelve hour long free for all in which the government has allowed all crime to be legal, with the intention that people will get it out of their system.
As a result crime has dropped and unemployment is at an all time low so something must be working? Of course not everyone takes part and those who choose not to, stay behind the confines of their locked down house waiting for the mayhem to pass.
This particular night for the Sandin’s runs like any other normal purge. They sit down to eat, discuss their day and then wait for the alarm to sound which begins the carnage. When Sandin’s young son lets in a stranger looking to take shelter from a group of mask wearing savages events take a turn for the worse.
Lead by the smiling Rhys Wakefield who should take credit from his performance and one so disturbing that it could be compared to Michael Pitt in Funny Games. The gang are desperate to get their hands on the stranger the Sandin’s are harbouring and so give them an ultimatum, “send him out or we’re coming in”.
And so a decision must be made, do they turn themselves into the people on the outside who have no remorse when it comes to killing or do they stand and fight? The Purge is confused as it is disjoined and the script is weak leaving the tension to do the talking which is filled with horror cliches left, right and centre.
From tight shots of darkened corridors to things lurking in the shadows out of sight it rarely delivers a unique treat. The cast is not particularly strong, Wakefield aside. Hawke moves through the gears but offers nothing that we haven’t already seen before. Leaving the majority of the dramatic turns to his on screen wife, Lena Headey .
Despite the short run time, the film is practically over before it has started and it even tries to save itself with a twist ending which you could see coming a mile off.
The year is 2022, Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin who’s made his wealth by selling security systems that help protect people against the yearly purge. The purge is a twelve hour long free for all in which the government has allowed all crime to be legal, with the intention that people will get it out of their system.
As a result crime has dropped and unemployment is at an all time low so something must be working? Of course not everyone takes part and those who choose not to, stay behind the confines of their locked down house waiting for the mayhem to pass.
This particular night for the Sandin’s runs like any other normal purge. They sit down to eat, discuss their day and then wait for the alarm to sound which begins the carnage. When Sandin’s young son lets in a stranger looking to take shelter from a group of mask wearing savages events take a turn for the worse.
Lead by the smiling Rhys Wakefield who should take credit from his performance and one so disturbing that it could be compared to Michael Pitt in Funny Games. The gang are desperate to get their hands on the stranger the Sandin’s are harbouring and so give them an ultimatum, “send him out or we’re coming in”.
And so a decision must be made, do they turn themselves into the people on the outside who have no remorse when it comes to killing or do they stand and fight? The Purge is confused as it is disjoined and the script is weak leaving the tension to do the talking which is filled with horror cliches left, right and centre.
From tight shots of darkened corridors to things lurking in the shadows out of sight it rarely delivers a unique treat. The cast is not particularly strong, Wakefield aside. Hawke moves through the gears but offers nothing that we haven’t already seen before. Leaving the majority of the dramatic turns to his on screen wife, Lena Headey .
Despite the short run time, the film is practically over before it has started and it even tries to save itself with a twist ending which you could see coming a mile off.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Right off the bat, this latest remake of the classic H.G. Wells story shows us just how suspenseful it can be. It’s the middle of the night and a wide-awake Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) quietly climbs out of bed so as not to disturb her sleeping partner Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). It quickly becomes apparent that she has been waiting and planning for this moment to leave him for some time now, and she is absolutely terrified of waking him up. She creeps through their spacious modern glass home, gathering some of her belongings and occasionally checking a mobile feed of the CCTV camera that she has re-positioned in order to see Adrian asleep in bed. Already the tension is unbearable, and we’re only a few minutes into the movie!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jul 4, 2020
Beautiful gameplay
I have to hold my hands up and say that I've never played the original. I started on FF8 as a teenager and never quite got around to backtracking to 7, so I'm fortunate in a way that I could play this game with no preconceived ideas.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
Mattia Gagliardi (14 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Will Smith does a good job (1 more)
It's watchable
It pales in comparison with the animated version (4 more)
Jafar is dull and monotone
It was like watching a stage play rather than a movie
The new song is forgettable
The CGI is not that good
Quite useless but not bad
The original Aladdin was the first movie I watched in theater (or at least the one that I have memory). It was magical, mysterious and hilarious.
This one is just ok. In all honesty it kind of represent my thought with all these live action Disney movie remakes: what's the point? I mean I know they will bring lots of money to them but for the viewer there is nothing special.
The point of a remake for me is to bring an old product to a new generation, adding new elements while still maintaining the spirit. If it is just a carbon copy with little to new changes and overall nothing to add to the conversation to me they fail.
This new Aladdin is basically the same movie with worse characters and dull moments. I actually liked Will Smith as the Genie. I was expecting to cringe at most of his scene but in all honesty he does really a good job. He is different from Robin Williams for obvious reason but he manage to give his own spin and it works for what it is, so much so that I was eager to see more of him.
The worst is definitely Jafar. I don't know if it's a casting mistake but he was so monotone, dull, boring. The original have different ranges of emotions, being low key in some point to then goes over the top and flamboyant. The new Jafar instead is just dull.
It is not an awful movie and it is still watchable, probably you might even enjoy it. However the animated version has so much energy! It's vibrant, colorful, funny and in all honesty it still perfectly holds up! If you are curious to see the same movie with worst character then feel free to see it, otherwise just stick to the original.
This one is just ok. In all honesty it kind of represent my thought with all these live action Disney movie remakes: what's the point? I mean I know they will bring lots of money to them but for the viewer there is nothing special.
The point of a remake for me is to bring an old product to a new generation, adding new elements while still maintaining the spirit. If it is just a carbon copy with little to new changes and overall nothing to add to the conversation to me they fail.
This new Aladdin is basically the same movie with worse characters and dull moments. I actually liked Will Smith as the Genie. I was expecting to cringe at most of his scene but in all honesty he does really a good job. He is different from Robin Williams for obvious reason but he manage to give his own spin and it works for what it is, so much so that I was eager to see more of him.
The worst is definitely Jafar. I don't know if it's a casting mistake but he was so monotone, dull, boring. The original have different ranges of emotions, being low key in some point to then goes over the top and flamboyant. The new Jafar instead is just dull.
It is not an awful movie and it is still watchable, probably you might even enjoy it. However the animated version has so much energy! It's vibrant, colorful, funny and in all honesty it still perfectly holds up! If you are curious to see the same movie with worst character then feel free to see it, otherwise just stick to the original.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Geekerella (Once Upon a Con #1) in Books
Nov 1, 2018
My review can also be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
When the typical Cinderella story meets a geeky girl, a comic con and an actor instead of a prince, you get Geekerella. A story unlike any other Cinderella like stories, full with wittiness, geekiness and style.
We have Elle, who is our Cinderella. Her father passed away and left her with her stepmom and her two stepsisters. Elle is also a vivid lover of Starfield, sci-fi series similar to Star Trek and Star Wars. She is also a blogger, where she writes all things Starfield.
On the other side, we have Darien, who is an actor and just got the main character role for the new remake of Starfield. While he deeply loves Starfield, he is not allowed to show those emotions and let everyone knows he is a fan, because it will ruin his reputation. And that is the sole reason why fans don’t like him – he is just another guy that goes for the money and ruins their favourite fan fiction (we have all been there though, haven’t we?).
When fate somehow connects Elle and Darien together, under unknown circumstances they start texting to each other, without revealing who they really are. And that is when everything changes.
A story about love and friendship, but most importantly – a story that teaches you to “Look to the stars. Aim. Ignite.” A story that reminds you to keep believing in who you are and why you are doing what you love. This is an amazing reminder to all of you – to be the people you want to be, because once you are comfortable with who you are and what you love to do – nothing can stop you in being great! And most importantly – HAPPY!
While there were bits and pieces that I couldn’t resist but to cringe on, such as the falling in love through texting, or not being able to say no to your step sisters, or being afraid to tell your fans that you are a fan, while they keep accusing you that you don’t care. (How could this ruin a reputation? It could only make it better)…
While there were things that bothered me, this story was still a great revolution to the Cinderella retelling. No other story has shown a girl to fight for what she loves as strongly as this, without the help of magic or a pumpkin – even though her best friend Sage was really the fairy in this situation.
Thank you to NetGalley and Quirk Books, for providing me with an ARC copy of the book.
If you haven’t read it already, please do! It is worth reading it, as it has a powerful message inside of it. I recommend it to all of you out there!
When the typical Cinderella story meets a geeky girl, a comic con and an actor instead of a prince, you get Geekerella. A story unlike any other Cinderella like stories, full with wittiness, geekiness and style.
We have Elle, who is our Cinderella. Her father passed away and left her with her stepmom and her two stepsisters. Elle is also a vivid lover of Starfield, sci-fi series similar to Star Trek and Star Wars. She is also a blogger, where she writes all things Starfield.
On the other side, we have Darien, who is an actor and just got the main character role for the new remake of Starfield. While he deeply loves Starfield, he is not allowed to show those emotions and let everyone knows he is a fan, because it will ruin his reputation. And that is the sole reason why fans don’t like him – he is just another guy that goes for the money and ruins their favourite fan fiction (we have all been there though, haven’t we?).
When fate somehow connects Elle and Darien together, under unknown circumstances they start texting to each other, without revealing who they really are. And that is when everything changes.
A story about love and friendship, but most importantly – a story that teaches you to “Look to the stars. Aim. Ignite.” A story that reminds you to keep believing in who you are and why you are doing what you love. This is an amazing reminder to all of you – to be the people you want to be, because once you are comfortable with who you are and what you love to do – nothing can stop you in being great! And most importantly – HAPPY!
While there were bits and pieces that I couldn’t resist but to cringe on, such as the falling in love through texting, or not being able to say no to your step sisters, or being afraid to tell your fans that you are a fan, while they keep accusing you that you don’t care. (How could this ruin a reputation? It could only make it better)…
While there were things that bothered me, this story was still a great revolution to the Cinderella retelling. No other story has shown a girl to fight for what she loves as strongly as this, without the help of magic or a pumpkin – even though her best friend Sage was really the fairy in this situation.
Thank you to NetGalley and Quirk Books, for providing me with an ARC copy of the book.
If you haven’t read it already, please do! It is worth reading it, as it has a powerful message inside of it. I recommend it to all of you out there!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Toni Erdmann (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Well Now! *over exaggerated sigh of relief* After my first movie review of the year it is a suspicious coincidence as well as a welcome relief, that I have the incredibly good fortune to bring you the review of a movie that is not only good but it’s original, sometimes confusing, weird, downright funny, and German. Hey, sometimes when you are disappointed with a domestic film it’s best to look at a foreign film. That ‘strategy’ applies to any movie viewer in any country I can assure you. Today’s film for your consideration is already making waves and winning awards in Germany, Europe, and around the world. It’s making such a significant fuss that as of February 7th, its confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of self-imposed retirement to portray the lead in an American remake of the movie!
‘Toni Erdmann’ is an Austrian-German dramatic comedy written, directed, and co-produced by Maren Abe. The film stars famed Austrian actor Peter Simonischek as Winfried Conradi (the character was based on the directors father a purported prankster) a divorced music teacher and father whose considered by his family, friends, and students to be a hippie. He has the reputation of being a prankster and is notorious for playing practical jokes. He is estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller). An ambitious business woman working for a company in Romania. They rarely speak except for family gatherings at which Ines is usually on her phone conducting business and actually spends little time with the family. Her father in particular. The only friendship Winfried has is with his blind and deaf dog. One night, after a family gathering and paying a visit to his mother, Winfried falls asleep in his front yard only to wake up and find that his beloved dog has passed away during the night. Feeling lost and dwelling on the past, he travels to Bucharest where his daughter currently consults for an oil company. He finds the office complex where she is based and waits in the lobby for several hours. Finally, he catches a glimpse of Ines walking through the lobby with several board members of her client’s company and sneaks up behind them wearing sunglasses and his trademarked fake teeth while pretending to read a newspaper. Ines notices but completely ignores Winfried. Despite the failure of his practical joke, Ines contacts her father and invites him to a reception at the American embassy in Bucharest where they have a chance encounter with the CEO of a German oil company Mr. Henneberg with whom Ines has been desperately trying arrange business dealings with. While paying little attention to Ines, ironically Henneberg begins a conversation with Winfried in which he casually and jokingly mentioned that he has hired a replacement daughter because Ines is always so busy. Much to the surprise of both, Henneberg invites Ines and her father to join him and his entourage for drinks at a trendy bar where he continues to brush off Ines but only after sharing Winfried’s joke with his colleagues.
Ines is so absorbed in her work she seems to only tolerate her father’s presence and after a few days, Winfried decides to leave feeling alienated as though he’s getting in the way of his daughter’s life. A few days later, Ines and two of her friends are out having drinks when Winfried appears at the bar. Wearing a wig and his trademark false teeth he chimes in on the conversation between his daughter and her friends and comically introduces himself as ‘Toni Erdmann’ a consultant and life coach. Ines two friends continue to converse with him trying their best not to laugh while Winfried continues to ‘enhance’ his character much to the dismay of Ines.
Meanwhile, Ines day-to-Day work routine becomes more frustrating as she seems to be going nowhere with her career despite her best efforts. Becoming almost amused with her father’s character, Ines decides to play along with the character and even invites ‘Erdmann’ to spend time with her at work and with her friends and later even to a business meeting. Strangely enough, the ‘Erdmann’ character created by her father has become a strange and hilarious means of bonding with her father leading to one misadventure after another in which she decides she no longer cares about her current state of being and proceeds to alienate her boss and her colleagues and a way that’s reminiscent of her father’s ‘prankster tendencies’.
This film did not disappoint. It’s funny, it’s shocking, it’s awkward at some points. Most importantly, it’s original. It flys in the face of routine and redundancy and like many great films implies that in the end, the most important thing is family. When worse comes to worse family might not always get you out of trouble but they will certainly provide the catalyst for an escape from the hum drum of whatever is eating at your life.
‘Toni Erdmann’ has already been nominated for ‘Best Film Of The Year’ by critics in several countries including France and England. It premiered at the Cannes film festival last year in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category of the film festival but the night before its premiere, the judges and critics gave it such praise it was immediately added to the more prestigious ‘Palme d’Or’ category and went on to receive high praise at its premiere. It has already won 20 awards in serval countries with many more awards pending. I’m calling this film 4 out of 5 stars. The film clocks in at 162 minutes. A bit long on the tooth for running time but DO NOT let that discourage you from seeing the film. Do yourself a favor and check out ‘Toni Erdmann’ now and see the original in all it’s hilarious glory. As I mentioned earlier, it’s been confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of retirement to portray the lead in the American remake. This film is totally something you would’ve seen Mr. Nicholson doing early in his career back when he was just getting started as an actor. Even with this in mind someone somewhere along the line could still screw it up.
‘Toni Erdmann’ is an Austrian-German dramatic comedy written, directed, and co-produced by Maren Abe. The film stars famed Austrian actor Peter Simonischek as Winfried Conradi (the character was based on the directors father a purported prankster) a divorced music teacher and father whose considered by his family, friends, and students to be a hippie. He has the reputation of being a prankster and is notorious for playing practical jokes. He is estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller). An ambitious business woman working for a company in Romania. They rarely speak except for family gatherings at which Ines is usually on her phone conducting business and actually spends little time with the family. Her father in particular. The only friendship Winfried has is with his blind and deaf dog. One night, after a family gathering and paying a visit to his mother, Winfried falls asleep in his front yard only to wake up and find that his beloved dog has passed away during the night. Feeling lost and dwelling on the past, he travels to Bucharest where his daughter currently consults for an oil company. He finds the office complex where she is based and waits in the lobby for several hours. Finally, he catches a glimpse of Ines walking through the lobby with several board members of her client’s company and sneaks up behind them wearing sunglasses and his trademarked fake teeth while pretending to read a newspaper. Ines notices but completely ignores Winfried. Despite the failure of his practical joke, Ines contacts her father and invites him to a reception at the American embassy in Bucharest where they have a chance encounter with the CEO of a German oil company Mr. Henneberg with whom Ines has been desperately trying arrange business dealings with. While paying little attention to Ines, ironically Henneberg begins a conversation with Winfried in which he casually and jokingly mentioned that he has hired a replacement daughter because Ines is always so busy. Much to the surprise of both, Henneberg invites Ines and her father to join him and his entourage for drinks at a trendy bar where he continues to brush off Ines but only after sharing Winfried’s joke with his colleagues.
Ines is so absorbed in her work she seems to only tolerate her father’s presence and after a few days, Winfried decides to leave feeling alienated as though he’s getting in the way of his daughter’s life. A few days later, Ines and two of her friends are out having drinks when Winfried appears at the bar. Wearing a wig and his trademark false teeth he chimes in on the conversation between his daughter and her friends and comically introduces himself as ‘Toni Erdmann’ a consultant and life coach. Ines two friends continue to converse with him trying their best not to laugh while Winfried continues to ‘enhance’ his character much to the dismay of Ines.
Meanwhile, Ines day-to-Day work routine becomes more frustrating as she seems to be going nowhere with her career despite her best efforts. Becoming almost amused with her father’s character, Ines decides to play along with the character and even invites ‘Erdmann’ to spend time with her at work and with her friends and later even to a business meeting. Strangely enough, the ‘Erdmann’ character created by her father has become a strange and hilarious means of bonding with her father leading to one misadventure after another in which she decides she no longer cares about her current state of being and proceeds to alienate her boss and her colleagues and a way that’s reminiscent of her father’s ‘prankster tendencies’.
This film did not disappoint. It’s funny, it’s shocking, it’s awkward at some points. Most importantly, it’s original. It flys in the face of routine and redundancy and like many great films implies that in the end, the most important thing is family. When worse comes to worse family might not always get you out of trouble but they will certainly provide the catalyst for an escape from the hum drum of whatever is eating at your life.
‘Toni Erdmann’ has already been nominated for ‘Best Film Of The Year’ by critics in several countries including France and England. It premiered at the Cannes film festival last year in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category of the film festival but the night before its premiere, the judges and critics gave it such praise it was immediately added to the more prestigious ‘Palme d’Or’ category and went on to receive high praise at its premiere. It has already won 20 awards in serval countries with many more awards pending. I’m calling this film 4 out of 5 stars. The film clocks in at 162 minutes. A bit long on the tooth for running time but DO NOT let that discourage you from seeing the film. Do yourself a favor and check out ‘Toni Erdmann’ now and see the original in all it’s hilarious glory. As I mentioned earlier, it’s been confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of retirement to portray the lead in the American remake. This film is totally something you would’ve seen Mr. Nicholson doing early in his career back when he was just getting started as an actor. Even with this in mind someone somewhere along the line could still screw it up.