Search
Search results
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.
Fred (860 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
This is how you ruin a classic
Dumbo is one of my favorite Disney films. The original, not this crap. When told that his film was not long enough to be considered a full-length movie & that he would have to add 10 more minutes or so, Disney said "No. It's perfect the way it is." And he was right. The people who made this live-action remake apparently never heard that story. It's almost 2 hours long. The original story of the first film is done in about the first 20 minutes of this film, then it's an original sequel, basically.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Tale of Two Sisters (2003) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Tale of Two Sisters starts with Soo-mi Bae in a hospital with a doctor trying to convince her to tell her story. We flashback to when sisters Soo-mi Bae (Lim) and Soo-yeon Bae (Moon) move to the country home owned by their father Moo-hyeon Bae (Kim) and their new stepmother Eun-joo Heo (Yum).
The two sisters don’t like their new stepmother and to make matters worse the two discover that they are being haunted by a spirit, but is the spirit guiding them to uncover a truth or does it have another motive?
A Tale of Two Sisters really makes you wonder what is going on because once the big reveal happens you are left wondering what just happened. Everything is very well created with the suspense building up through the early part of the film and returning to the high level by the end of the film. This story does need a re-watch because you will want to check out everything that is finally reveal.
Actor Review
Kap-su Kim: Moo-hyeon Bae is the father of the family who does seem to end up becoming pretty much a background character to the three female characters. I feel this character falls to the background too much to get a high enough rating.
Jung-ah Yum: Eun-joo Heo is the stepmother of the family who doesn’t seem to like the two girls, she has a past that is hidden but once it gets discovered we see hat she is capable off. I think she makes for a very good menacing performance throughout while looking very normal to her husband.
Su-Jeong Lim: Soo-mi Bae is the eldest of the sisters who always protects her younger sister from the new stepmother, she learns more about the stepmother’s past but has past that ends up helping with the final reveal. This is a good performance showing the fear and the caring side being used throughout.
Geun-young Moon: Soo-Yeon Bae is the younger sister who always looks at her big sister for protection, constantly following her around the house, we learn about why she is being haunted and needing help as the film unfolds. This is good performance that ends up have a big secret.
Support Cast: A Tale of Two Sisters really doesn’t have much of a supporting cast but the very few we have all do what they need to do.
Director Review: Jee-woon Kim – Jee-woon gives us a very good horror that will keep you guessing until the very end where you will be left wonder what did happen.
Horror: A Tale of Two Sisters has real horror moments when they happen that will shock you.
Mystery: A Tale of Two Sisters creates a mystery about what is happening and what is the secret behind the stepmother.
Thriller: A Tale of Two Sisters keeps you guessing to what will happen by the end of the film.
Settings: A Tale of Two Sisters keeps all the action of the film in an isolated country house which adds to the horror because the girls have no where to go or no one to see.
Special Effects: A Tale of Two Sisters uses the effects for the haunting which are the only need for them.
Suggestion: A Tale of Two Sisters is one for the horror fans to try which is don’t go and watch remake first. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Girl at the end of the bed nightmare.
Worst Part: You will need to double check the twist.
Scariest Scene: Girl at the end of the bed.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 55 Minutes
Tagline: Every family has its dark secrets.
Overall: Horror film that is filled with suspense filled scares but a final twist that makes you wonder what really happened.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/12/25/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-a-tale-of-two-sisters-2003/
The two sisters don’t like their new stepmother and to make matters worse the two discover that they are being haunted by a spirit, but is the spirit guiding them to uncover a truth or does it have another motive?
A Tale of Two Sisters really makes you wonder what is going on because once the big reveal happens you are left wondering what just happened. Everything is very well created with the suspense building up through the early part of the film and returning to the high level by the end of the film. This story does need a re-watch because you will want to check out everything that is finally reveal.
Actor Review
Kap-su Kim: Moo-hyeon Bae is the father of the family who does seem to end up becoming pretty much a background character to the three female characters. I feel this character falls to the background too much to get a high enough rating.
Jung-ah Yum: Eun-joo Heo is the stepmother of the family who doesn’t seem to like the two girls, she has a past that is hidden but once it gets discovered we see hat she is capable off. I think she makes for a very good menacing performance throughout while looking very normal to her husband.
Su-Jeong Lim: Soo-mi Bae is the eldest of the sisters who always protects her younger sister from the new stepmother, she learns more about the stepmother’s past but has past that ends up helping with the final reveal. This is a good performance showing the fear and the caring side being used throughout.
Geun-young Moon: Soo-Yeon Bae is the younger sister who always looks at her big sister for protection, constantly following her around the house, we learn about why she is being haunted and needing help as the film unfolds. This is good performance that ends up have a big secret.
Support Cast: A Tale of Two Sisters really doesn’t have much of a supporting cast but the very few we have all do what they need to do.
Director Review: Jee-woon Kim – Jee-woon gives us a very good horror that will keep you guessing until the very end where you will be left wonder what did happen.
Horror: A Tale of Two Sisters has real horror moments when they happen that will shock you.
Mystery: A Tale of Two Sisters creates a mystery about what is happening and what is the secret behind the stepmother.
Thriller: A Tale of Two Sisters keeps you guessing to what will happen by the end of the film.
Settings: A Tale of Two Sisters keeps all the action of the film in an isolated country house which adds to the horror because the girls have no where to go or no one to see.
Special Effects: A Tale of Two Sisters uses the effects for the haunting which are the only need for them.
Suggestion: A Tale of Two Sisters is one for the horror fans to try which is don’t go and watch remake first. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Girl at the end of the bed nightmare.
Worst Part: You will need to double check the twist.
Scariest Scene: Girl at the end of the bed.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 55 Minutes
Tagline: Every family has its dark secrets.
Overall: Horror film that is filled with suspense filled scares but a final twist that makes you wonder what really happened.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/12/25/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-a-tale-of-two-sisters-2003/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wrath of the Titans (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sequels often struggle to live up to the expectations set by their predecessors. Wrath of the Titans delivers. Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes reprise their roles as Perseus, Zeus, and Hades in this continuation of the Clash of the Titans remake from 2010. They’re joined this time by Rosamund Pike, who portrays the strong, female love interest as the beautiful Queen Andromeda.
Perseus has settled down to become a fisherman with his son. His wife has been written out of the story — either by design or because the actress was not available. She seems to be dead for no particular reason. Perseus has chosen to live life as a mortal, despite his father, Zeus (Neeson), offering him a seat of power on Olympus. Early in the movie, Zeus comes to his son and asks for help, telling him something big is coming. Only Perseus, a demi-god, would have the strength to ensure humanity’s survival.
The rest of the story involves Perseus’s journey to save the world from the reawakening of Chronos. Mythology geeks and fantasy buffs will appreciate the severity of this situation.
While the makers of this film certainly didn’t reinvent the wheel, or even attempt to one-up their previous film, they surely succeeded in making an entertaining screenplay. In short: if you liked the first, you will like this one. It has all the action, sword-swinging, flying-horse-riding, and titan-killing you would expect from the series. The CGI is impressive, and the 3D effects were not too objectionable.
One scene in particular stuck out as ill-conceived. The kiss at the end of the film felt forced. There was very little romantic build-up throughout the movie, so it felt as if the filmmakers included the kiss because moviegoers expect to see romantic resolution. Perhaps this is one of the several endings they filmed, at which point they let focus groups make the call. Either way, it felt awkward.
As I said before, if you enjoyed the first, seeing the second is worth your time and money.
Perseus has settled down to become a fisherman with his son. His wife has been written out of the story — either by design or because the actress was not available. She seems to be dead for no particular reason. Perseus has chosen to live life as a mortal, despite his father, Zeus (Neeson), offering him a seat of power on Olympus. Early in the movie, Zeus comes to his son and asks for help, telling him something big is coming. Only Perseus, a demi-god, would have the strength to ensure humanity’s survival.
The rest of the story involves Perseus’s journey to save the world from the reawakening of Chronos. Mythology geeks and fantasy buffs will appreciate the severity of this situation.
While the makers of this film certainly didn’t reinvent the wheel, or even attempt to one-up their previous film, they surely succeeded in making an entertaining screenplay. In short: if you liked the first, you will like this one. It has all the action, sword-swinging, flying-horse-riding, and titan-killing you would expect from the series. The CGI is impressive, and the 3D effects were not too objectionable.
One scene in particular stuck out as ill-conceived. The kiss at the end of the film felt forced. There was very little romantic build-up throughout the movie, so it felt as if the filmmakers included the kiss because moviegoers expect to see romantic resolution. Perhaps this is one of the several endings they filmed, at which point they let focus groups make the call. Either way, it felt awkward.
As I said before, if you enjoyed the first, seeing the second is worth your time and money.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
Fred (860 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 16, 2020
Enjoyable enough
The movie was enjoyable enough & I would probably watch it again, just to try to catch the little Hanna-Barbera references throughout it. The movie starts with the meeting of the gang & then, using a very cool remake of the original theme song sequence, moves ahead to when the gang are already seasoned "monster" hunters. But although I did enjoy it, it had a lot of problems.
Most notably, the voice acting. For some reason, instead of sticking with the current actors who do the character's voices, they decided to replace them with more well known actors. Problem is, most of them sound nothing like the characters, it kind of throws everything off. Will Forte may be the exception as his Shaggy is close enough & of course we do have Scooby's current voice, Frank Welker as Scooby. But then, this is where it gets silly. You have Frank Welker, the original voice of Fred in your movie, but you decide not to use him as Fred. WTF? Really? So you got Fred, Velma & Daphnie played by actors that sound nothing like the characters. Quick mention too about the voices of the main characters when they were kids. Terrible & annoying (quick enough?). The movie also features Blue Falcon & Dyno-Mutt. Since this is not supposed to be the original Blue Falcon, his voice change is acceptable. However, Ken Jeong is just a weird choice for Dyno-Mutt. The character has no personality & is nothing like the character should be. And to be honest, I didn't like the role reversal of Falcon being a coward & Dyno-Mutt not being a screw-up. The main villain of the film, Dick Dastardly, is voiced well, but just like the others, sounds nothing like the original voices, so it throws it off. In fact, if they had not said his name was Dick Dastardly, I would have no idea it was supposed to be Dick Dastardly.
So now, let's talk about Dick Dastardly. In the cartoons, it was either just he & his dog Muttley being the bad guys or he had a few others try to help him. But in this film, they instead have him with a whole slew of robot minions, who I guess were supposed to be like the Minions of Despicable Me, but these guys have no personality at all & the character & the film suffer because of this.
There is also another character in the film. She's Blue Falcon's.....something. Sidekick? Helper? I don't remember her name, nor do I care. She is utterly forgettable & useless. But she's the only person of color I can think of in the movie, so I guess that's why she's there. That's fine, but I wish she had a more prominent role, rather than just be there to fill a gap.
So, why did I like the movie then? Well, it's fun & there were many times I laughed out loud. there were jokes that kid's would definitely not get, that I did. The animation is top-notch & beautiful to watch. There is also a lot of nostalgia factor, whether you're a fan of Scooby or of the dozens of other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 70s. The story works well enough, for a Scooby Doo movie& the pacing is nice. There are no points where the movie gets slow or boring. Like I said, I'd probably watch it again & that's good enough.
Most notably, the voice acting. For some reason, instead of sticking with the current actors who do the character's voices, they decided to replace them with more well known actors. Problem is, most of them sound nothing like the characters, it kind of throws everything off. Will Forte may be the exception as his Shaggy is close enough & of course we do have Scooby's current voice, Frank Welker as Scooby. But then, this is where it gets silly. You have Frank Welker, the original voice of Fred in your movie, but you decide not to use him as Fred. WTF? Really? So you got Fred, Velma & Daphnie played by actors that sound nothing like the characters. Quick mention too about the voices of the main characters when they were kids. Terrible & annoying (quick enough?). The movie also features Blue Falcon & Dyno-Mutt. Since this is not supposed to be the original Blue Falcon, his voice change is acceptable. However, Ken Jeong is just a weird choice for Dyno-Mutt. The character has no personality & is nothing like the character should be. And to be honest, I didn't like the role reversal of Falcon being a coward & Dyno-Mutt not being a screw-up. The main villain of the film, Dick Dastardly, is voiced well, but just like the others, sounds nothing like the original voices, so it throws it off. In fact, if they had not said his name was Dick Dastardly, I would have no idea it was supposed to be Dick Dastardly.
So now, let's talk about Dick Dastardly. In the cartoons, it was either just he & his dog Muttley being the bad guys or he had a few others try to help him. But in this film, they instead have him with a whole slew of robot minions, who I guess were supposed to be like the Minions of Despicable Me, but these guys have no personality at all & the character & the film suffer because of this.
There is also another character in the film. She's Blue Falcon's.....something. Sidekick? Helper? I don't remember her name, nor do I care. She is utterly forgettable & useless. But she's the only person of color I can think of in the movie, so I guess that's why she's there. That's fine, but I wish she had a more prominent role, rather than just be there to fill a gap.
So, why did I like the movie then? Well, it's fun & there were many times I laughed out loud. there were jokes that kid's would definitely not get, that I did. The animation is top-notch & beautiful to watch. There is also a lot of nostalgia factor, whether you're a fan of Scooby or of the dozens of other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 70s. The story works well enough, for a Scooby Doo movie& the pacing is nice. There are no points where the movie gets slow or boring. Like I said, I'd probably watch it again & that's good enough.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Banana Splits Movie (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Banana Splits Movie
Isn’t it nice when a network tries to reboot an old children’s favourite? It seems to be happening a lot these days with Netflix reviving Voltron, She-Ra and the Dark Crystal. They have taken a different approach with the Banana Splits though. The starting premise is that the Banana Splits show was never cancelled and, for his ninth birthday Harley is taken to a live filming of the show. Drooper, Fleegle, Snorky and Bingo are all there but the actors have been replaced with animatronics and they have three human friends they interact with (Paige, Stevie and Thadd). The show is still the same as when it first started way back in the 1960s with silly sketches, fun catchphrases and an assault course for the kids although the show has gathered a cult following (as it would in real life) and half the audience are adults.
As the live filming gets under way the actors are informed that this will be the final show as the network has cancelled it, this news is met with mixed reactions from the crew. The Banana splits however only have one reaction, they are programmed that ‘The Show Must Go On’ so, during the back stage tour they begin to make sure that it will never stop. They kidnap all the children, after all the show will always need an audience, and they start to kill or torture all the adults.
Yes, that’s right, someone took a beloved children’s show and added a splash of the ‘Child's Play’ remake and a whole ton of ‘Five Nights At Freddy’s’. To be clear this is a horror/slasher that’s rated 18 (R rated in the USA) that features a group of 60’s children’s characters going on a killing spree because their show got cancelled. It’s campy, it’s dark, it actually builds up to the kills and it has some really good characters and scenes, I especially like Poppy’s story line.
So, we have a film based on a 60’s children’s series that’s been turned into a horror whilst still sticking to its roots that is defiantly not for kids and isn’t a total pile of rubbish.
As a side note I did read that the Banana Splits movie came about because Warner Bros wanted to make a ‘Five Nights At Freddie’s’ movie but they couldn’t get the rights so they made this. not sure how true it is but there are similarities.
Isn’t it nice when a network tries to reboot an old children’s favourite? It seems to be happening a lot these days with Netflix reviving Voltron, She-Ra and the Dark Crystal. They have taken a different approach with the Banana Splits though. The starting premise is that the Banana Splits show was never cancelled and, for his ninth birthday Harley is taken to a live filming of the show. Drooper, Fleegle, Snorky and Bingo are all there but the actors have been replaced with animatronics and they have three human friends they interact with (Paige, Stevie and Thadd). The show is still the same as when it first started way back in the 1960s with silly sketches, fun catchphrases and an assault course for the kids although the show has gathered a cult following (as it would in real life) and half the audience are adults.
As the live filming gets under way the actors are informed that this will be the final show as the network has cancelled it, this news is met with mixed reactions from the crew. The Banana splits however only have one reaction, they are programmed that ‘The Show Must Go On’ so, during the back stage tour they begin to make sure that it will never stop. They kidnap all the children, after all the show will always need an audience, and they start to kill or torture all the adults.
Yes, that’s right, someone took a beloved children’s show and added a splash of the ‘Child's Play’ remake and a whole ton of ‘Five Nights At Freddy’s’. To be clear this is a horror/slasher that’s rated 18 (R rated in the USA) that features a group of 60’s children’s characters going on a killing spree because their show got cancelled. It’s campy, it’s dark, it actually builds up to the kills and it has some really good characters and scenes, I especially like Poppy’s story line.
So, we have a film based on a 60’s children’s series that’s been turned into a horror whilst still sticking to its roots that is defiantly not for kids and isn’t a total pile of rubbish.
As a side note I did read that the Banana Splits movie came about because Warner Bros wanted to make a ‘Five Nights At Freddie’s’ movie but they couldn’t get the rights so they made this. not sure how true it is but there are similarities.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A New Classic
There’s an old saying; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and that was the kind of reaction many people had towards Disney’s live-action remake of The Jungle Book.
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/