Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 24, 2019 (Updated Jun 24, 2019)
I really can't believe it's been 9 years since Toy Story 3! It's even more unbelievable to think that the first Toy Story came out in 1995, meaning these beloved characters have now been with us for nearly a quarter of a century! I don't think anybody really expected, or even thought we needed, yet another sequel to these movies, as Toy Story 3 seemed to give us a natural, and highly emotional conclusion to the series. And yet here we are with number 4. Interestingly, I felt the trailers for this Toy Story didn't really highlight anything new and exciting for the series, possibly only existing as a bit of a cash grab. Thankfully, there's a lot here that's new and exciting, and I'm sure it will make a tonne of money too!
Toy Story 4 begins by taking us back 9 years, to a scene which helps to explain the absence of Bo Peep from the last movie, before bringing us back to present day. The gang are all right where we left them, living with Bonnie and being played with regularly. Although, worryingly for Woody, he seems to be getting left behind in Bonnie's wardrobe on a more regular basis during the play sessions. Overlooked in favour of the other toys and, worse still, even having his sheriff badge removed and placed on Jessie!
Woody still feels a duty of care towards Bonnie though, so when a taster day at kindergarten arrives, Woody decides to accompany a very nervous Bonnie for the day, stowing away in her backpack. We then get to relive what all of us have been through at some point during our younger years - going somewhere new and feeling very alone, scared, out of your comfort zone and thinking that everyone dislikes you. Woody does his best to try and make the day more bearable for Bonnie, without being seen of course, throwing discarded craft items from the bin so that she has something to work with during craft time.
Back in Bonnie's room later on, Woody reveals to the rest of the toys the result of Bonnie's crafting session - a spork with googly eyes, pipe-cleaner arms and a broken ice lolly stick for feet. His name is Forky and, having effectively just been 'born', Forky struggles to understand who he is, what he is or why he is. He's also constantly drawn to trash bins, as that's where he came from. As Bonnie's new favourite toy, Woody takes on the role of guardian, repeatedly removing Forky from the bins and ensuring that he's never out of Bonnie's sight in what is a very funny 15 minutes or so. So when Bonnie and her parents head out on a road trip with all the toys, and Forky leaps from the back of the RV, it's up to Woody to go find him and bring him back to Bonnie before she notices.
The journey back to Bonnie isn't quite that straightforward though. Side plots involving an antique store and a fairground provide lots of opportunities for drama and humour and also introduce us to some great new characters. But, Toy Story 4 is primarily about Woody and his journey of self discovery. He learns about what it means to be a toy and his experiences throughout the movie give him an insight into the very different lives that the toys he encounters have all experienced. What it's like to be without a child, whether you desperately want to be with one or aren't really bothered. The only downside of all of this is that the rest of our core team of characters from the original movies are pretty much sidelined, serving only to remain together back in Bonnie's room or the RV while they wait for word back on whether or not Woody is OK. Buzz does get a bit more involved in things than the others do, but seems to have reverted to being slightly dumb in a way that we haven't seen since the first movie.
But these are all very minor negatives. Toy Story 4 is very funny, with much of that humour stemming from the new characters, particularly stunt-rider Duke Caboom and fairground fluffy toys Ducky and Bunny. It's definitely not as sad as Toy Story 3 was, but it does manage to be pretty emotional at times as it tugs at the heartstrings and makes you think a little bit deeper about life, death and creation. After nearly 25 years though, it's incredible that these characters still manage to deliver such satisfyingly enjoyable movies. And if this really is the end of Toy Story movies, it's a great way to end the series.
Toy Story 4 begins by taking us back 9 years, to a scene which helps to explain the absence of Bo Peep from the last movie, before bringing us back to present day. The gang are all right where we left them, living with Bonnie and being played with regularly. Although, worryingly for Woody, he seems to be getting left behind in Bonnie's wardrobe on a more regular basis during the play sessions. Overlooked in favour of the other toys and, worse still, even having his sheriff badge removed and placed on Jessie!
Woody still feels a duty of care towards Bonnie though, so when a taster day at kindergarten arrives, Woody decides to accompany a very nervous Bonnie for the day, stowing away in her backpack. We then get to relive what all of us have been through at some point during our younger years - going somewhere new and feeling very alone, scared, out of your comfort zone and thinking that everyone dislikes you. Woody does his best to try and make the day more bearable for Bonnie, without being seen of course, throwing discarded craft items from the bin so that she has something to work with during craft time.
Back in Bonnie's room later on, Woody reveals to the rest of the toys the result of Bonnie's crafting session - a spork with googly eyes, pipe-cleaner arms and a broken ice lolly stick for feet. His name is Forky and, having effectively just been 'born', Forky struggles to understand who he is, what he is or why he is. He's also constantly drawn to trash bins, as that's where he came from. As Bonnie's new favourite toy, Woody takes on the role of guardian, repeatedly removing Forky from the bins and ensuring that he's never out of Bonnie's sight in what is a very funny 15 minutes or so. So when Bonnie and her parents head out on a road trip with all the toys, and Forky leaps from the back of the RV, it's up to Woody to go find him and bring him back to Bonnie before she notices.
The journey back to Bonnie isn't quite that straightforward though. Side plots involving an antique store and a fairground provide lots of opportunities for drama and humour and also introduce us to some great new characters. But, Toy Story 4 is primarily about Woody and his journey of self discovery. He learns about what it means to be a toy and his experiences throughout the movie give him an insight into the very different lives that the toys he encounters have all experienced. What it's like to be without a child, whether you desperately want to be with one or aren't really bothered. The only downside of all of this is that the rest of our core team of characters from the original movies are pretty much sidelined, serving only to remain together back in Bonnie's room or the RV while they wait for word back on whether or not Woody is OK. Buzz does get a bit more involved in things than the others do, but seems to have reverted to being slightly dumb in a way that we haven't seen since the first movie.
But these are all very minor negatives. Toy Story 4 is very funny, with much of that humour stemming from the new characters, particularly stunt-rider Duke Caboom and fairground fluffy toys Ducky and Bunny. It's definitely not as sad as Toy Story 3 was, but it does manage to be pretty emotional at times as it tugs at the heartstrings and makes you think a little bit deeper about life, death and creation. After nearly 25 years though, it's incredible that these characters still manage to deliver such satisfyingly enjoyable movies. And if this really is the end of Toy Story movies, it's a great way to end the series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Death By Rock and Roll by The Pretty Reckless
Album
Rock 'n' roll is a religion. It's a commitment to an ideal, a belief system. The lifestyle and...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Albino Farm (2009)
Movie
The film opens in the small town of Shiloh, where two boys on bicycles ride through the woods up to...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) Jun 24, 2019