Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Jan 23, 2019 (Updated Jan 23, 2019)
Chock-full of tropes (1 more)
Pretty lazy in most aspects
Bit of a Buzzkill
When this movie dropped late last year, I never paid any attention to it. Everything in the Transformers series has been awful since the first movie and although I knew that Michael Bay wasn't directing this one, I was still more than happy to skip it. However, after it opened to rave reviews, it peaked my interest a bit. I was hearing all sorts of good things, with this movie even being compared to the likes of ET and The Goonies. Well last night we went to the cinema planning to see Glass, but had missed the previous showing and didn't want to wait around for hours until the next one so we decided to check out Bumblebee to see if it could live up to the hype surrounding it.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Natalie Reyes - a kick-ass non-white female hero (1 more)
Arnie's drapes
Linda Hamilton - acting didn't work for me (1 more)
Confusing storyline (as a continuation of T2)
Enjoyable Hokum
Natalia Reyes plays young Mexican Dani Ramos. Out of the blue she faces danger and tragedy when a ‘Rev 9’ Terminator (Gabriel Luna) zaps itself back in time to Mexico City to dispose of her. But, as in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”, a protector is on hand. This time it’s in the ripped form of ‘enhanced’ human Grace (Mackenzie Davis). She’s there to protect Dani and maintain whatever key to the future that she holds.
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Just what the doctor ordered: a charming and thoughtful summer comedy.
Romance and comedy work together beautifully on film: love is innately ridiculous after all! But mix in a dramatic element – particularly a serious medical emergency – to a Rom Com and you walk a dangerous line between on the one hand letting the drama overwhelm the comedy ( “Well! I don’t feel like laughing now!”) and on the other hand diverging into shockingly mawkish finger-down-the-throat sentimentality. Fortunately the new comedy – “The Big Sick” – walks that line to perfection.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Kumail Nanjiani plays (who’d have thought it?) Kumail, a Pakistani-born comic-cum-Uber-driver struggling to get recognised on the Chicago comedy circuit. His performances mix traditional stand-up at a club with a rather po-faced one-man show where he explains at length the culture of Pakistan (Naan-splaining?), including intricate detail on the fielding positions and strategies of cricket. Kumail is heckled during a show by the young and perky Emily (Zoe Kazan, the middle daughter from “It’s Complicated”). Lust blossoms (mental note: stand up comedy seems a fabulous strategy for picking up women) and lust turns to romance as the pair grow closer to each other.
A surging romance. Uber gets love from A to B.
Unfortunately Kumail is aware of something Emily isn’t: his strictly Muslim parents Sharmeen and Azmat (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) believe in arranged marriages to ‘nice Pakistani girls’ and a relationship with – let alone a marriage to – Emily risks disgrace and familial exile. A medical crisis brings Kumail further into dispute, this time with Emily’s parents Beth and Terry (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano).
Stand-up is, I assert, a very nationalistic thing. It is a medium hugely dependant on context and while I’m sure great British comics like Peter Kay and Eddie Izzard might rate as only a 4 or a 5 out of 10 for most Americans, so most American stand-up comics tend to leave me cold. And perhaps it’s also a movie-thing, that stand-up on the big screen just doesn’t work well? Either way, the initial comedy-club scenes rather left me cold. (And I don’t think most of them were SUPPOSED to be particularly bad – since they seemed to fill the seats each night). As a result I thought this was a “comedy” that wasn’t going to be for me.
Stand up and be counted. Kumail Nanjiani doing the circuit.
But once Nanjiani and Kazan got together the chemistry was immediate and palpable and the duo completely won me round. Kazan in particular is a vibrant and joyous actress who I would love to see a lot more of: this should be a breakout movie for her.
Broader, but none less welcome, comedy is to be found in Kumail’s family home as his mother introduces serial Pakistani girls to the dinner table.
Holly Hunter (“Broadcast News” – one of my favourite films) and Ray Romano are also superb, delivering really thoughtful and nuanced performances that slowly unpeel the stresses inherent in many long-term marriages. The relationship that develops between Kumail and Beth is both poignant and truly touching.
Where the script succeeds is in never quite making the viewer comfortable about where the movie is going and whether the film will end with joy or heartbreak. And you will find no spoilers here!
So is it a comedy classic? Well, no, not quite. What’s a bit disappointing is that for a film as culturally topical as this, the whole question of Islamophobia in Trump’s America is juggled like a hot potato. Aside from one memorable scene in the club, with a redneck heckler, and an excruciating exchange about 9/11 between Kumail and Terry, the subject is completely ignored. This is a shame. The script (by Nanjiani and Emily Gordon) would have benefited enormously from some rather braver “Thick of It” style input from the likes of Armando Iannucci.
I also have to despair at the movie’s marketing executives who came up with this title. FFS! I know “East is East” has already gone, but could you have possibly come up with a less appealing title? I guess the title does serve one useful purpose in flagging up potential upset for those with bad historical experiences of intensive care. (Like “The Descendants” this is what we would term in our family #notaShawFamilyfilm).
Overall though this film, directed by Michael Showalter (no, me neither!) and produced by Judd Apatow (whose name gets the biggest billing), is a fun and engaging movie experience that comes highly recommended. A delightful antidote to the summer blockbuster season. The end titles also bring a delightful surprise (that I’ve seen spoiled since by some reviews) that was moving and brought added depth to the drama that had gone before.
More Hollywood please, more.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Taken 3 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Impossible to recommend
The first Taken propelled Liam Neeson to action man stardom and became one of the most surprising hits of 2009. Its successor to some extent managed to capture the same thrilling suspense despite its ridiculous 12A certification.
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Winchester: The House That Ghosts Built (2018) in Movies
Feb 2, 2018
It was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, when I saw the trailer for Winchester, I was a little intrigued. Not a lot, but a little. A bit more so when I realized that Helen Mirren was in it. Though I can’t say I could name anything else she’s been in off-hand, I did recognize that she had a bit of weight behind her name. Her presence, combined with Jason Clarke (who I recognize more as a “Hey, it’s that guy” than actually recognize) gave me some hope for the movie. Hence stealing away on a Friday afternoon, paying entirely too much money for a ticket and popcorn to get the big-screen experience.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Aug 23, 2018
Funny for a Puppet Movie
I did not go in to this movie with the highest of hopes but I came out with a big smile on my face. There were a lot of people that told me not to go to this movie, but I never listen to anyone and this is a good reason why. I try not to judge a movie by the trailer for the the big reason they never tell the whole story and you have to trust the person making the trailer. So I went anyway.
I am really glad I did because it was really funny from start to finish. I thought they would put in to much toilet humor and they didn't. What they did put in was well placed and fit the story line great. It was also kind of great seeing a different side to brutal murders. Without blood and guts they were able to be more creative with the killing and give you something very different.
I do have to give props to the puppeteers. At the end of the movie they showed some clips of behind the scenes and some of the things they had to do to get the shots looked difficult. Also how they shot the interactions with human puppet were done fantastic, It really did not look like CGI was used at all even though there was a lot.
Brian Henson did a great job writing the script. The use of humans vs puppets was done very well. It almost reminded me of a Who Framed Roger Rabbit type of movie. I almost thought at the end the killer was going to be a puppet in a human body. Wouldn't that have been a twist.
Buddy cop movies have always been a favorite of mine from Lethal Weapon to Bad Boys. This movie was right up there. I would say the best but it had its moments. I did think Melissa McCarthy wasn't going to be the choice, but she worked out. He type of humor did have place in this movie, although in some places it was over the top. All the puppet cast was really good. You mostly had human puppets but there were some animals thrown in the mix. I do with there were more monster puppets like Oscar the Grouch or Elmo. That would have been great.
Overall I think it is worth a watch if you like puppets and murder mysteries and don't mind the occasional sex joke. Until next time, enjoy the show.
I am really glad I did because it was really funny from start to finish. I thought they would put in to much toilet humor and they didn't. What they did put in was well placed and fit the story line great. It was also kind of great seeing a different side to brutal murders. Without blood and guts they were able to be more creative with the killing and give you something very different.
I do have to give props to the puppeteers. At the end of the movie they showed some clips of behind the scenes and some of the things they had to do to get the shots looked difficult. Also how they shot the interactions with human puppet were done fantastic, It really did not look like CGI was used at all even though there was a lot.
Brian Henson did a great job writing the script. The use of humans vs puppets was done very well. It almost reminded me of a Who Framed Roger Rabbit type of movie. I almost thought at the end the killer was going to be a puppet in a human body. Wouldn't that have been a twist.
Buddy cop movies have always been a favorite of mine from Lethal Weapon to Bad Boys. This movie was right up there. I would say the best but it had its moments. I did think Melissa McCarthy wasn't going to be the choice, but she worked out. He type of humor did have place in this movie, although in some places it was over the top. All the puppet cast was really good. You mostly had human puppets but there were some animals thrown in the mix. I do with there were more monster puppets like Oscar the Grouch or Elmo. That would have been great.
Overall I think it is worth a watch if you like puppets and murder mysteries and don't mind the occasional sex joke. Until next time, enjoy the show.