Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated American Reunion (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has often been said that you cannot turn back the hands of time, but thankfully Hollywood is a place where magical things happen. In the case of the gang from American Pie and the creative talents of writer directors Jon Hurwitz Hayden Schlossberg, the gang is back, better than ever, for another slice if pie. Hurwitz and Schlossberg are the creative team behind the ” Harold and Kumar” series and have been entrusted by Universal to carry on the American Pie series which had recently been relegated to four direct-to-DVD releases.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Nov 22, 2020
The synopsis was suitably intriguing, but there's always a slight worry that a fantasy romance is going to be a little cheesy.
Riley and Chris are the definition of young love, their future together is almost certain, until a car accident takes Chris. But Chris isn't gone yet, he's stuck on Earth in limbo. When he finds he can communicate with Riley, their love lives on, but are the consequences of living this way a price they can pay?
So, Endless is exactly what it sounds like, ghost boyfriend hangs around living girlfriend and they learn things about themselves... because that's what these films do. The opening gives you the impression you're about to see the film love child of a Disney Channel Original movie and a Hallmark movie, and that's not far off what we get... except it probably could have done with a bit more humour injected into it, and maybe a smidge less drama.
Riley and Chris are our young leading duo, they're in love, they want their future to be together... and yet somehow he is baffled by her life choices with college. The opening of the film is a montage that shows this perfect couply life, and it's very much used to cover up the fact that the main bulk of the film skips over this development between them. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our first big interaction with them is basically an argument about something that they would have already talked about had they been this couple we'd seen portrayed. So not only are we starting the film with a scenario that seems contrary to the life we're shown, but we're also confronted with hostility between them which gives us no chance to get to know either one and "be on their side" through the rest of the film.
I was astounded to see that this film is only 1 hour 35... I can already sense that many people will be making jokes about this film's title and the runtime (because I can't be the only one who feels things about this film), it really did feel longer so I can't blame them for it. That does also go some way to explain bits that seem to happen very suddenly, I'm not sure if they've written it this way or if it's been cut down, but it left me with an odd feeling at times.
When it comes to acting I'm having trouble separating it from the characters and the script. Many of the characters have such a swift change in emotion that I imagined someone behind the camera was shouting "Now you're angry!" at them randomly. No one seems to be immune, even DeRon Horton, who struck me as doing the best job of his piece, has a mad moment that didn't seem to fit with the character or the story.
Endless honestly seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, I couldn't see a clear goal for what the final product was trying to be. Was it the story of them as a couple? Was it the story of Chris coming to terms with his passing? Or was it the story of Riley finding herself and her passion through grief? It appeared to be all of those with varying importance throughout.
I'm aware I'm rambling a little at this point... I'll try to get a move on!
With Chris being dead they've decided they need to capture the spirit world on screen. It's certainly clear when this happens with its hazy glimmer, but I don't think they needed to do that at all, it's a little over the top. As is the addition of the traditional ghost-passing-through-things effect. That was indeed a little cheesy in this drama and is one of the main reasons I stated above that it could have embraced some more humour. Something that particularly bugged me with the effects though is the fact they paid money to give us a Snapchat filter but didn't pay someone to take out the sound of Chris and Jordan walking on gravel.
For all my griping though, I did find it an emotional watch, sadly that couldn't pull it back from the many problems I encountered along the way. An extra ten minutes to expand on their relationship would have helped it along a little, but I think its biggest problem is the inconsistency that plagues us throughout with the characters and the storylines.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/endless-movie-review.html
Riley and Chris are the definition of young love, their future together is almost certain, until a car accident takes Chris. But Chris isn't gone yet, he's stuck on Earth in limbo. When he finds he can communicate with Riley, their love lives on, but are the consequences of living this way a price they can pay?
So, Endless is exactly what it sounds like, ghost boyfriend hangs around living girlfriend and they learn things about themselves... because that's what these films do. The opening gives you the impression you're about to see the film love child of a Disney Channel Original movie and a Hallmark movie, and that's not far off what we get... except it probably could have done with a bit more humour injected into it, and maybe a smidge less drama.
Riley and Chris are our young leading duo, they're in love, they want their future to be together... and yet somehow he is baffled by her life choices with college. The opening of the film is a montage that shows this perfect couply life, and it's very much used to cover up the fact that the main bulk of the film skips over this development between them. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our first big interaction with them is basically an argument about something that they would have already talked about had they been this couple we'd seen portrayed. So not only are we starting the film with a scenario that seems contrary to the life we're shown, but we're also confronted with hostility between them which gives us no chance to get to know either one and "be on their side" through the rest of the film.
I was astounded to see that this film is only 1 hour 35... I can already sense that many people will be making jokes about this film's title and the runtime (because I can't be the only one who feels things about this film), it really did feel longer so I can't blame them for it. That does also go some way to explain bits that seem to happen very suddenly, I'm not sure if they've written it this way or if it's been cut down, but it left me with an odd feeling at times.
When it comes to acting I'm having trouble separating it from the characters and the script. Many of the characters have such a swift change in emotion that I imagined someone behind the camera was shouting "Now you're angry!" at them randomly. No one seems to be immune, even DeRon Horton, who struck me as doing the best job of his piece, has a mad moment that didn't seem to fit with the character or the story.
Endless honestly seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, I couldn't see a clear goal for what the final product was trying to be. Was it the story of them as a couple? Was it the story of Chris coming to terms with his passing? Or was it the story of Riley finding herself and her passion through grief? It appeared to be all of those with varying importance throughout.
I'm aware I'm rambling a little at this point... I'll try to get a move on!
With Chris being dead they've decided they need to capture the spirit world on screen. It's certainly clear when this happens with its hazy glimmer, but I don't think they needed to do that at all, it's a little over the top. As is the addition of the traditional ghost-passing-through-things effect. That was indeed a little cheesy in this drama and is one of the main reasons I stated above that it could have embraced some more humour. Something that particularly bugged me with the effects though is the fact they paid money to give us a Snapchat filter but didn't pay someone to take out the sound of Chris and Jordan walking on gravel.
For all my griping though, I did find it an emotional watch, sadly that couldn't pull it back from the many problems I encountered along the way. An extra ten minutes to expand on their relationship would have helped it along a little, but I think its biggest problem is the inconsistency that plagues us throughout with the characters and the storylines.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/endless-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.