Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ambulance (2022) in Movies
Apr 18, 2022
Repetitive drone camera work (2 more)
Cringey humor and dialogue
An outdated and juvenile screenplay
Ambulance Review: Action At Its Dumbest And Gaudiest
Ambulance is a remake of a 2005 Danish film of the same name. Michael Bay’s version of the film follows former Marine Will Sharp (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) as he struggles to find a job and support his family; his wife requires an experimental surgery that their health insurance won’t pay for.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Casino Royale (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an effort to breathe life into franchises, Hollywood, has looked to remaking franchises instead of adding sequels. This is a stark contrast to remaking a film 10-20 years after the original film appeared, rather the new trend is to start series anew, in effect wiping away the previous history and continuity of the past films in the series.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Seo-Hyun Ahn (1 more)
Seamless, beautiful effects
Should have stuck at being a family movie (1 more)
Jake Gyllenhaal
Plays as though it should be a family movie, but it definitely isn't
Okja created a fair bit of buzz at Cannes recently, when it was revealed that it had been picked up by Netflix, resulting in boos from some of the snobby traditionalists that were present for its screening. Okja was written and directed by Bong Joon Ho, a Korean filmmaker who also wrote and directed one of my favourite movies of recent years, Snowpiercer. That movie failed to receive a UK release, despite starring Chris Evans in-between his Captain America/Avengers duties, so I’m more than happy if a movie that’s just a little bit different from the norm manages to find an audience through modern, ‘non-traditional’ routes.
And Okja certainly is a bit different. We’re first introduced to CEO of Mirando Corporation, Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) who has ‘bred’ superpigs, in an effort to help with world hunger. 26 of these superpigs are being sent to farmers at various locations around the world and in 10 years time a competition is planned to determine who has raised the largest superpig. Lucy is clearly a bit strange (the perfect role for Tilda Swinton), and her company spokesperson, TV zoologist Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal) is even stranger. They’re determined to put a friendly, happy gloss over the fact that these animals have been genetically modified for slaughter and profit. So, time for us to get to know, and fall in love with one of them…
It’s now 10 years later and we’re with Mija, a young girl living in the mountains of Korea with her grandfather and Okja, the large hippo-like superpig who has become her close friend. They spend their time together out in the forest, with Okja helping to catch fish for dinner, and proving to be a faithful companion for Mija. And when disaster strikes, Okja even demonstrates the intelligence required to work out how to save Mija’s life. Okja is beautifully rendered in CGI, interacting perfectly with the surroundings and actors and is thoroughly convincing. It’s an enchanting and beautiful half hour or so – but we know it’s not going to last.
A small team from the Miranda Corporation arrives, along with Johnny Wilcox, who is just hugely annoying. They’re here to check up on how Okja is doing and, unbeknown to Mija, take her back to New York as the winner of the superpig contest. While Mija is in the forest with her grandfather she discovers what they’re planning and heads off to rescue Okja. What follows is an entertaining and thrilling chase to get Okja before she heads onto a plane. Mija is fearless and determined, a strong young heroine and probably the best thing about this movie. Along the way she is joined by the Animal Liberation Front, a young team that includes Steven Yeun, Paul Dano and Lily Collins. They know where Okja is headed and what her fate will be and they plan to stop it, with the help of Mija.
Much of Okja plays as though it should be a family movie and I wish that’s how they’d made it. With a large, friendly creature companion that needs to be rescued from the bad guys, much of this reminded me of the 2016 live action remake of Pete’s Dragon, which I enjoyed a lot. However, the final hour or so turns distinctly dark as we venture into the slaughterhouse and that, along with regular use of bad language, has given this movie a 15 certificate. It’s a strange variation of styles that just didn’t sit right with me overall. As mentioned before, Gyllenhaals character is seriously annoying and would have been much better suited as the wacky comic relief if this were a family movie. Tilda Swinton soon becomes boring too and it’s left to Mija and Okja to save the movie from becoming a total disaster.
Entertaining and enjoyable at times, but the wild variation of styles and characters just made the latter half of the movie drag.
And Okja certainly is a bit different. We’re first introduced to CEO of Mirando Corporation, Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) who has ‘bred’ superpigs, in an effort to help with world hunger. 26 of these superpigs are being sent to farmers at various locations around the world and in 10 years time a competition is planned to determine who has raised the largest superpig. Lucy is clearly a bit strange (the perfect role for Tilda Swinton), and her company spokesperson, TV zoologist Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal) is even stranger. They’re determined to put a friendly, happy gloss over the fact that these animals have been genetically modified for slaughter and profit. So, time for us to get to know, and fall in love with one of them…
It’s now 10 years later and we’re with Mija, a young girl living in the mountains of Korea with her grandfather and Okja, the large hippo-like superpig who has become her close friend. They spend their time together out in the forest, with Okja helping to catch fish for dinner, and proving to be a faithful companion for Mija. And when disaster strikes, Okja even demonstrates the intelligence required to work out how to save Mija’s life. Okja is beautifully rendered in CGI, interacting perfectly with the surroundings and actors and is thoroughly convincing. It’s an enchanting and beautiful half hour or so – but we know it’s not going to last.
A small team from the Miranda Corporation arrives, along with Johnny Wilcox, who is just hugely annoying. They’re here to check up on how Okja is doing and, unbeknown to Mija, take her back to New York as the winner of the superpig contest. While Mija is in the forest with her grandfather she discovers what they’re planning and heads off to rescue Okja. What follows is an entertaining and thrilling chase to get Okja before she heads onto a plane. Mija is fearless and determined, a strong young heroine and probably the best thing about this movie. Along the way she is joined by the Animal Liberation Front, a young team that includes Steven Yeun, Paul Dano and Lily Collins. They know where Okja is headed and what her fate will be and they plan to stop it, with the help of Mija.
Much of Okja plays as though it should be a family movie and I wish that’s how they’d made it. With a large, friendly creature companion that needs to be rescued from the bad guys, much of this reminded me of the 2016 live action remake of Pete’s Dragon, which I enjoyed a lot. However, the final hour or so turns distinctly dark as we venture into the slaughterhouse and that, along with regular use of bad language, has given this movie a 15 certificate. It’s a strange variation of styles that just didn’t sit right with me overall. As mentioned before, Gyllenhaals character is seriously annoying and would have been much better suited as the wacky comic relief if this were a family movie. Tilda Swinton soon becomes boring too and it’s left to Mija and Okja to save the movie from becoming a total disaster.
Entertaining and enjoyable at times, but the wild variation of styles and characters just made the latter half of the movie drag.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
SprinkleBrush - Remove acne or any kind of mole, pimple, wrinkle, scar form your face. Clear your skin from freckles, bruises and blemishes
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
SprinkleBrush - is a tool to edit your photos with unwanted areas on them like pimples, moles,...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Taking on a movie as beloved as “The Wizard of Oz” is a daunting task. The iconic Judy Garland film is considered a classic and many of the songs from the film have remained part of our culture since it was released in 1939. Despite several book sequels, the attempts to continue the series have had little success as there have been animated films as well as an urban remake, “The Wiz”, which also failed to reach the success of the original. Director Sam Raimi opted to do an original prequel story that tells of how the fabled Wizard of Oz came to be.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Herbert West is no ordinary doctor. He's brilliant and obviously knows quite a bit about the field of medicine, but something is peculiar about him. He acts strangely and tends to keep to himself while getting absorbed into his work. Throughout his research, Dr. West may have finally perfected his serum. A serum that brings the dead back to life. The consequences of the serum are hectic, as expected. The sooner the serum is injected into a fresh corpse in comparison to one that's been lying around for a few hours, the better the results. Based on the H.P. Lovecraft tale, Herbert West-Reanimator, West finds himself at a medical college when his stint in Switzerland ends a bit abruptly. There he meets Dan Cain, a student at the college who is held in high regard, and Dan's girlfriend, Meg, whose father is the dean to the medical college. When Dan puts a notice up looking for a roommate in his dorm, West comes knocking. Things seem to be a constant downward spiral from there as West continues his research and the bodies begin to pile up.
Re-Animator is one of the few cult classics that I'll stick up for. I usually wind up feeling like most classic horror films that are recommended or held in such high regard aren't good at all or are extremely overrated. This film is a lot of fun though. It's definitely got its campy qualities with a headless corpse stumbling around the third act of the film, but it doesn't feel out of place for a film built around a concoction that's injected into the brain to bring corpses back from the dead. The music, especially the opening theme, tends to get a bad wrap because it blatantly rips off (or pays homage, depending on how you look at it) the Psycho score. While the similarities are crystal clear once they're heard, I honestly didn't mind it. It's kind of hard to imagine this film with different music, so I have no complaints.
The Herbert West role really fits Jeffrey Combs like a glove. His attraction to weird and quirky roles pretty much began with films like this one. As West's unusual personality is revealed throughout the film, you can't help but get a sense of uneasiness as his character traits unravel before your very eyes. The best example is when West brings Dan's cat Rufus back to life. After it's been killed for the second time, Dan is shocked to discover it's Rufus and turns to look at West. West points at the cat and tells Dan to, "Look out!" Dan quickly turns his attention back to poor Rufus, who's still lying there motionless. West begins to burst into maniacal laughter as Dan looks on in horror. With the upcoming remake on the horizon, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Herbert West especially with Jeffrey Combs confirmed for a cameo.
While Re-Animator could definitely be considered cheesy and campy at times, its strengths outweigh its flaws. The story is simple, but tends to unfold nicely and the acting is solid (David Gale as Dr. Hill is up for debate though). The film is pretty much exactly what you would expect a horror film to be like from the eighties; gory, cheesy, tons of nudity and sex, and a few creative twists along the way. And when it comes to horror, what else could you really ask for?
Re-Animator is one of the few cult classics that I'll stick up for. I usually wind up feeling like most classic horror films that are recommended or held in such high regard aren't good at all or are extremely overrated. This film is a lot of fun though. It's definitely got its campy qualities with a headless corpse stumbling around the third act of the film, but it doesn't feel out of place for a film built around a concoction that's injected into the brain to bring corpses back from the dead. The music, especially the opening theme, tends to get a bad wrap because it blatantly rips off (or pays homage, depending on how you look at it) the Psycho score. While the similarities are crystal clear once they're heard, I honestly didn't mind it. It's kind of hard to imagine this film with different music, so I have no complaints.
The Herbert West role really fits Jeffrey Combs like a glove. His attraction to weird and quirky roles pretty much began with films like this one. As West's unusual personality is revealed throughout the film, you can't help but get a sense of uneasiness as his character traits unravel before your very eyes. The best example is when West brings Dan's cat Rufus back to life. After it's been killed for the second time, Dan is shocked to discover it's Rufus and turns to look at West. West points at the cat and tells Dan to, "Look out!" Dan quickly turns his attention back to poor Rufus, who's still lying there motionless. West begins to burst into maniacal laughter as Dan looks on in horror. With the upcoming remake on the horizon, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Herbert West especially with Jeffrey Combs confirmed for a cameo.
While Re-Animator could definitely be considered cheesy and campy at times, its strengths outweigh its flaws. The story is simple, but tends to unfold nicely and the acting is solid (David Gale as Dr. Hill is up for debate though). The film is pretty much exactly what you would expect a horror film to be like from the eighties; gory, cheesy, tons of nudity and sex, and a few creative twists along the way. And when it comes to horror, what else could you really ask for?
Angela Merkel: A Chancellorship Forged in Crisis
Alan Crawford and Tony Czuczka
Book
Shortlisted for International Affairs Book of the Year in the Paddy Power Political Book Awards 2014...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)