Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The Toothless Croc Adventure that bit off more than it could chew
If you are big horror fan, like I am, then you will no doubt have seen and loved Jaws at some point.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I was treated to this as an Unlimited Screening at Cineworld, mixing it up with a Saturday night viewing. Just a pre-warning, there is a very minor spoiler below, it's really more of a notice to watch out for something in the film, but if you want to avoid it then you can go over to Letterboxd (link can be found in the left hand menu) and read the review with that omitted.
We have been needing this film for quite some time. It is everything a classic rom-com should be and it feels like we haven't had one of this caliber in quite a while. It has all the ups and downs you want, the emotion and the humour, the serious and the down right ridiculous.
I did wonder if I would feel slightly more disconnected from the film because of the cultural differences... which at the time was mainly because I hadn't really heard much about the film... but the story is that eternal struggle of love that you can just connect with straight away.
The only reason this didn't get the fill five is because of the wacky Goh family. I'm not particularly a fan of Awkwafina or Ken Jeong's characters in it. While funny, I feel that their jokes/situations went on a bit too long taking it from funny to a little irritating.
Despite my issues with the way some of the characters went there's no denying that all of the cast did an amazing job. I particularly loved Gemma Chan as Astrid. The pinnacle of understated grace and kindness but with the side that no one sees apart from Rachel. Her performance was excellent a always and one of the most heartbreaking parts of the movie.
There are so many things to enjoy in this movie. I particularly liked the flashback at the beginning, so well done and really amusing. My second pick of highlights goes to a scene that I'm only partially sure happened. All the way through the film the audience and I seemed to be on the same wave length, laughing and reacting at the same time... but then... I laughed and no one else did. Was I the only one that saw it?! On the boat during the bachelor party when Bernard fires the rocket launcher... did no one else see that model go flying backwards?! Like seriously... why was no one else laughing??
What should you do?
You should definitely go and see this one. Great for a girls night out, and good for a date night too.
You should also probably read the book, it's the first in the Crazy Rich Asians trilogy by Kevin Kwan. Kwan was on board with the film so if the author approves you know you won't be finding massive differences between the two.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Difficult to say what I'd want from this one. There were some lovely cars, but I think I'd still be happier with an Eleanor over any of these ones. It's probably got to be one of the lavish apartments with the stunning views instead.
We have been needing this film for quite some time. It is everything a classic rom-com should be and it feels like we haven't had one of this caliber in quite a while. It has all the ups and downs you want, the emotion and the humour, the serious and the down right ridiculous.
I did wonder if I would feel slightly more disconnected from the film because of the cultural differences... which at the time was mainly because I hadn't really heard much about the film... but the story is that eternal struggle of love that you can just connect with straight away.
The only reason this didn't get the fill five is because of the wacky Goh family. I'm not particularly a fan of Awkwafina or Ken Jeong's characters in it. While funny, I feel that their jokes/situations went on a bit too long taking it from funny to a little irritating.
Despite my issues with the way some of the characters went there's no denying that all of the cast did an amazing job. I particularly loved Gemma Chan as Astrid. The pinnacle of understated grace and kindness but with the side that no one sees apart from Rachel. Her performance was excellent a always and one of the most heartbreaking parts of the movie.
There are so many things to enjoy in this movie. I particularly liked the flashback at the beginning, so well done and really amusing. My second pick of highlights goes to a scene that I'm only partially sure happened. All the way through the film the audience and I seemed to be on the same wave length, laughing and reacting at the same time... but then... I laughed and no one else did. Was I the only one that saw it?! On the boat during the bachelor party when Bernard fires the rocket launcher... did no one else see that model go flying backwards?! Like seriously... why was no one else laughing??
What should you do?
You should definitely go and see this one. Great for a girls night out, and good for a date night too.
You should also probably read the book, it's the first in the Crazy Rich Asians trilogy by Kevin Kwan. Kwan was on board with the film so if the author approves you know you won't be finding massive differences between the two.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Difficult to say what I'd want from this one. There were some lovely cars, but I think I'd still be happier with an Eleanor over any of these ones. It's probably got to be one of the lavish apartments with the stunning views instead.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Fisherman's Friends (2019) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019 (Updated Mar 18, 2019)
Formulaic, clichéd, enjoyable bit of fun
Hot on the heels of Fighting with my Family comes yet another true story that I feel I should have known more about beforehand, but didn't. Fisherman's Friends tells the story of a group of singing Cornish fishermen who, in 2010, managed to land themselves not only a top 10 album but an appearance on Glastonbury's pyramid stage! The plot follows a much more formulaic and clichéd approach than Fighting with my Family does though, not quite managing to come close to the high bar that set, but is enjoyable enough all the same.
We begin by following a group of four men heading out on their stag do in the beautiful town of Port Isaac in Cornwall. A&R man Danny (Daniel Mays), his annoying record exec boss Troy (Noel Clarke) and a couple of their colleagues all arrive in the small fishing town for the weekend and immediately find themselves on the wrong side of the locals - driving the wrong way down a narrow one way street, foolishly ordering lager instead of bitter in the local pub (they don't serve fizzy drinks there) and needing to be rescued after their careless weekend enjoyment finds them all stranded at sea. City types who think they know it all, but haven't got a clue.
The fishermen that rescued the lads turn out to be part of a popular local singing group - singing sea shanties together while working out at sea and regularly putting on small concerts for the locals down on the harbour. It's while performing one of those gigs that Danny and his friends come across them. After a few moments of watching, Troy tells Danny that he wants him to go over and sign them up, and that he's not to take no for an answer. Off he goes, not knowing that it's all just a big joke, while his three colleagues all return home. Danny is left behind, struggling to try and convince the group that their unique sound is going to make them all big stars.
Out of the group of fishermen, only a handful of them are really explored and fleshed out as characters in any kind of way, with the majority of them simply fading into the background - backing singers if you will. Jim (James Purefoy) and his father Jago (David Hayman), are the main focus of the movie, along with Jim's single-mum daughter Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton), who Danny eventually begins to strike up a friendship with, and her young daughter. One of the other fishermen runs the local pub at the heart of the community, along with his wife, but is struggling to make ends meet in a sub-plot which comes to a head later on in the movie.
Fisherman's Friends is a movie full of clichés - the city slicker who initially doesn't understand the simple life, the familiar rom-com couple who start off disliking one another, but will clearly be falling madly in love before long, annoying city types who don't even look like they know how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone become successfully music moguls. But, despite it all, the movie works considerably well. The relationship and chemistry between Danny and Alwyn is believable, and the highs and lows that the group go through on their journey to stardom is both heartwarming and fun in equal measure. It's the kind of reliable movie you could quite happily sit and watch on the TV, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
We begin by following a group of four men heading out on their stag do in the beautiful town of Port Isaac in Cornwall. A&R man Danny (Daniel Mays), his annoying record exec boss Troy (Noel Clarke) and a couple of their colleagues all arrive in the small fishing town for the weekend and immediately find themselves on the wrong side of the locals - driving the wrong way down a narrow one way street, foolishly ordering lager instead of bitter in the local pub (they don't serve fizzy drinks there) and needing to be rescued after their careless weekend enjoyment finds them all stranded at sea. City types who think they know it all, but haven't got a clue.
The fishermen that rescued the lads turn out to be part of a popular local singing group - singing sea shanties together while working out at sea and regularly putting on small concerts for the locals down on the harbour. It's while performing one of those gigs that Danny and his friends come across them. After a few moments of watching, Troy tells Danny that he wants him to go over and sign them up, and that he's not to take no for an answer. Off he goes, not knowing that it's all just a big joke, while his three colleagues all return home. Danny is left behind, struggling to try and convince the group that their unique sound is going to make them all big stars.
Out of the group of fishermen, only a handful of them are really explored and fleshed out as characters in any kind of way, with the majority of them simply fading into the background - backing singers if you will. Jim (James Purefoy) and his father Jago (David Hayman), are the main focus of the movie, along with Jim's single-mum daughter Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton), who Danny eventually begins to strike up a friendship with, and her young daughter. One of the other fishermen runs the local pub at the heart of the community, along with his wife, but is struggling to make ends meet in a sub-plot which comes to a head later on in the movie.
Fisherman's Friends is a movie full of clichés - the city slicker who initially doesn't understand the simple life, the familiar rom-com couple who start off disliking one another, but will clearly be falling madly in love before long, annoying city types who don't even look like they know how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone become successfully music moguls. But, despite it all, the movie works considerably well. The relationship and chemistry between Danny and Alwyn is believable, and the highs and lows that the group go through on their journey to stardom is both heartwarming and fun in equal measure. It's the kind of reliable movie you could quite happily sit and watch on the TV, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated New In Town (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When asked my impression of “New in Town” the first thing I could come up with was, “It was cute.” That meant I felt positive about the movie, right? Right. It just wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. However, anything less than “cute” would’ve been unfair, but anything more would’ve been effusive.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Now that I’ve had time to mull over my response, I can’t help but remember the time I overheard a coworker compliment another coworker with, “You look cute.” To which the complimented coworker replied, “Thank you, but cute is for puppies. I was hoping for great.” Her inability to accept compliments graciously aside, I suppose, when you’re in your mid-40s, as this coworker was, cute just doesn’t cut it anymore. There does come a time, with maturity, one would rather hear they made a more indelible impression.
So what made this movie simply cute and not great? Maybe because I can’t answer the following questions with “Great!” But I could certainly answer them with “Cute.”
How was Renee Zellwegger, who plays Lucy Hill, a determined and driven Miami executive presented with the opportunty to restructure a manufacturing plant in New Ulm, Minnesota? Cute. Okay, I can say she’s extremely fit. Dresses impeccably in tailored power suits and works designer stilletos something fierce. But the whole package, complete with a pretty, but oddly stiff, face that winces more than it smiles, is just…cute.
How was Harry Connick, Jr., who plays Ted Mitchell, the union rep Renee’s character must negotiate with to facilitate the reorganization. Cute. Real cute with that beard. But that’s as enthusiastic as I can get and I love love love Harry Connick, Jr. His role is lowkey and what charm it allows him to cast toward Lucy is from afar. Personally, I think he would’ve been great with a piano and some singing. But that’s HCJ the singer. Alas, HCJ the actor only had a truck, birdshot and malfunctioning factory equipment. Thus, he remained just darn cute.
How was the supporting cast, headed by Siobhan Fallon, who plays Lucy’s quirky secretary, Blanche, and J. K. Simmons as the dour factory foreman, Stu? Cute. The only thing not cute about the townfolk were the sweaters and wallpaper. Ghastly would work better there. Their Minnesotan accents were spot-on (well, as far as I know, considering the only other Minnesotans I’ve ever heard were in other movies). Apparently we’re to believe New Ulm is full of either scrapbooking, Christian do-gooders bearing food or joyless, implacable factory workers who would rather drink beer, ice-fish or shoot crow.
How was the storyline? Cute. Predictable. An unoriginal romantic comedy that attempts to have message. An ambitious up-and-comer has her eye on the CEO title and thinks playing the hardnose in a cost-cutting, streamlining reorganization project will impress the boss. Hardnose in high heels comes up against a tight-knit community in flannel that’s not impressed with her wardrobe, her multi-syllabic vocaulary or her city girl naivete at all. Despite the arctic attitudes and scenery, there’s thawing on both sides as Lucy is drawn into the fold by Blanche and her scrapbooking matchmakers. She and Ted take turns rescuing each other and eventually Lucy discovers there’s a time to be all-business and there’s a time to be human, and her success comes when she finds the balance between both.
So, while I was hoping I could tell you this movie was great, I can’t. Maybe with more story development, more tangible chemistry between Ted & Lucy, it would have made a more indelible impression. For this lighthearted rom-com, cute will just have to do.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Oct 20, 2019
The cast is an impressive selection and I'll talk about some of them in a bit but first I want to mention the advertising related to the cast. Almost every poster I saw had the main cast's names plastered on it, and rightly so, but that all included Cardi B and Lizzo. I would imagine that a significant amount of people, like me, had expected to see both of their characters in a larger chunk of the film than we actually got. They were very much bit parts and giving them this poster billing seemed more like cashing in on their current success, sensible from an advertising point of view but you already had a massive cast and it really wasn't needed.
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
I'm always wary heading into comedies, and the majority of my reviews for the genre usually open with some intro along those lines. On the whole I'm usually disappointed with what I see, particularly as the trailers tend to show literally every single laugh out loud moment from the film, leaving very little else to enjoy. Mrs B joined me for this particular cinema trip, and we have a bit of a track record recently for picking movies to go and see together which then turn out to be a disappointment, so I was doubly worried. Coincidentally, as we pulled into the cinema car park, an ad for Long Shot played on the radio. It's outrageously funny! Absolutely hilarious! The funniest movie in years! Etc etc... All the usual claims, and mighty big words to live up to.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.