Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Final Destination 5 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director Steven Quale brings us the latest bloody installment of the “Final Destination” series 5 in 3D.
In this installment Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly Harper (Emma Bell), work in the same office with their friends and boss Dennis (David Koechner).
Sam has been offered an apprenticeship in Paris as a cook and though this has been Sam’s dream Molly feels that she is holding him back. This becomes awkward for the both of them as this happens right before they leave for a conference with their co-workers.
As with past films in the series, Sam has a vision of a very gruesome accident that kills him and his friends in a very grisly manner, this time through a bridge accident.
Sam awakens from his vision and manages to get several of his friends and his boss to safety before the accident happens. Despite being unable to explain how he saw the accident coming to his friends and the local authorities, Sam and his friends are thankful to be alive.
As fans of the series know, death does not like to be cheated, and one by one the survivors die in a series of freak accidents. In a race against time, they must follow the advice of a creepy medical examiner (Tony Todd), who advises them they must find someone to replace them in order to escape their fate.
What follows is a gory thrill ride that should delight fans of the series old and new.
Final Destination 5 is the perfect ending to a long and drawn out series of events. In Final Destination 4 is almost seemed as though the series would just keep going and we would see the same old story plot.
After the first two movies the sequels to those became dull and boring for me as how often can you play out the same formula? This time out, the deaths are over the top and cringe worthy and have breathed a new life into the franchise. Sure the acting is bad, but I would ask if anyone has ever gone to see any of the movies in the series for the acting?
For me it is all about the blood and guts with the outrageous death scenes and in this regard “Final Destination 5” delivers.
The studio made a very wise decision to film the entire movie in 3D rather than converting it after the fact as the opening title sequence alone is amazing with tons of glass and other objects floating in front of you in a menacing fashion.
The movie in a whole with its cheesy lines and absolutely horrible acting is made up for with the 3D effects. You will find yourself laughing often as the film plays up the humor and shock value instead of the frights. Be sure to pay close attention to references of past “Final Destination” movies as this chapter has a nice way to connect itself to the previous films. If you go to the theater with low expectations which most of you probably will you will sure to be blown away by this latest outing as this movie will provide you with great entertainment and is a must see in 3D!
In this installment Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly Harper (Emma Bell), work in the same office with their friends and boss Dennis (David Koechner).
Sam has been offered an apprenticeship in Paris as a cook and though this has been Sam’s dream Molly feels that she is holding him back. This becomes awkward for the both of them as this happens right before they leave for a conference with their co-workers.
As with past films in the series, Sam has a vision of a very gruesome accident that kills him and his friends in a very grisly manner, this time through a bridge accident.
Sam awakens from his vision and manages to get several of his friends and his boss to safety before the accident happens. Despite being unable to explain how he saw the accident coming to his friends and the local authorities, Sam and his friends are thankful to be alive.
As fans of the series know, death does not like to be cheated, and one by one the survivors die in a series of freak accidents. In a race against time, they must follow the advice of a creepy medical examiner (Tony Todd), who advises them they must find someone to replace them in order to escape their fate.
What follows is a gory thrill ride that should delight fans of the series old and new.
Final Destination 5 is the perfect ending to a long and drawn out series of events. In Final Destination 4 is almost seemed as though the series would just keep going and we would see the same old story plot.
After the first two movies the sequels to those became dull and boring for me as how often can you play out the same formula? This time out, the deaths are over the top and cringe worthy and have breathed a new life into the franchise. Sure the acting is bad, but I would ask if anyone has ever gone to see any of the movies in the series for the acting?
For me it is all about the blood and guts with the outrageous death scenes and in this regard “Final Destination 5” delivers.
The studio made a very wise decision to film the entire movie in 3D rather than converting it after the fact as the opening title sequence alone is amazing with tons of glass and other objects floating in front of you in a menacing fashion.
The movie in a whole with its cheesy lines and absolutely horrible acting is made up for with the 3D effects. You will find yourself laughing often as the film plays up the humor and shock value instead of the frights. Be sure to pay close attention to references of past “Final Destination” movies as this chapter has a nice way to connect itself to the previous films. If you go to the theater with low expectations which most of you probably will you will sure to be blown away by this latest outing as this movie will provide you with great entertainment and is a must see in 3D!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs Evil (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Does anyone remember the original Hoodwinked movie? Nobody else does, either. Blue Yonder Films, the studio that brought you Doogal tries to pull another rabbit out of their hat by releasing a sequel to the twisted fairy-tale movie titled Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs. Evil. All of the original voice characters are present from the first film, except for Red (Anne Hathaway was replaced by Hayden Panettiere), and Kirk the Woodsman (Jim Belushi , who was replaced by Martin Short).
It doesn’t really matter if you’ve seen the first movie, as a storybook opening catches the audience up on the current situation. A short intro introduces the HEA (Happily Ever After Agency; shouldn’t that be HEAA?) staking out a Wicked Witch who is holding Hansel & Gretel (Bill Hader & Amy Poehler) hostage in her Gingerbread House. The main protagonist, Red Riding Hood (Panettiere) is off on training, and her former partner, The Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) is handling the situation with Granny (Glen Close).
Of course, the seemingly simple scenario changes to a conspiracy which has actually been masterminded by the hostages, in order to drag a secret from Granny. Granny is a part of the Sisterhood of Kung-Fu Bakers (the “Hood” in the film’s title), and possesses the recipe of a secret weapon known as the Super Truffle, which supposedly makes those who consume it invincible. The movie has a small army of all-star cast members, and each one makes the most of their parts.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in the film misses the mark, from the writing, direction, and even the animation. Many other computer-animated movies today feel a lot more organic, and although the visuals of this sequel are better than the first there are times when character movements appear more programmed than motion-captured. Most of the jokes in the movie require one to have lived during the 70s or 80s, and nearly all of them are groaners. Jokes like “Dog is your co-pilot”, and a backwards sign where “dyslexic” is clearly visible are just too obscure even for the average adult. Sure, this is a family movie that should have something for everyone, but the preview theater I was in had a large mix of children and their parents, and there was only one time when the audience laughed as a whole.
There are a few running gags that did receive a positive audience response. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong play two of the Three Little Pigs (hitmen for hire), and they received most of the genuine laughs. Another running gag was of a banjo-playing goat, who is constantly being fallen upon by other characters. This gag did get some chuckles, particularly from children, but was an obvious rip-off of “Scrat” from the Ice Age series, but just didn’t have the same charm. Most animated films either have amazing visuals, humor or heart, and the best ones blend these essentials together. Unfortunately none of these elements are present in Hoodwinked Too to make the audience feel for Red’s story, and the semi-warm victory at the end is simply “meh”.
You won’t be missing anything by skipping this film at the box office. It might be worth a rental when it comes out on DVD, but you and your family can still live a full and satisfying life without it.
It doesn’t really matter if you’ve seen the first movie, as a storybook opening catches the audience up on the current situation. A short intro introduces the HEA (Happily Ever After Agency; shouldn’t that be HEAA?) staking out a Wicked Witch who is holding Hansel & Gretel (Bill Hader & Amy Poehler) hostage in her Gingerbread House. The main protagonist, Red Riding Hood (Panettiere) is off on training, and her former partner, The Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) is handling the situation with Granny (Glen Close).
Of course, the seemingly simple scenario changes to a conspiracy which has actually been masterminded by the hostages, in order to drag a secret from Granny. Granny is a part of the Sisterhood of Kung-Fu Bakers (the “Hood” in the film’s title), and possesses the recipe of a secret weapon known as the Super Truffle, which supposedly makes those who consume it invincible. The movie has a small army of all-star cast members, and each one makes the most of their parts.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in the film misses the mark, from the writing, direction, and even the animation. Many other computer-animated movies today feel a lot more organic, and although the visuals of this sequel are better than the first there are times when character movements appear more programmed than motion-captured. Most of the jokes in the movie require one to have lived during the 70s or 80s, and nearly all of them are groaners. Jokes like “Dog is your co-pilot”, and a backwards sign where “dyslexic” is clearly visible are just too obscure even for the average adult. Sure, this is a family movie that should have something for everyone, but the preview theater I was in had a large mix of children and their parents, and there was only one time when the audience laughed as a whole.
There are a few running gags that did receive a positive audience response. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong play two of the Three Little Pigs (hitmen for hire), and they received most of the genuine laughs. Another running gag was of a banjo-playing goat, who is constantly being fallen upon by other characters. This gag did get some chuckles, particularly from children, but was an obvious rip-off of “Scrat” from the Ice Age series, but just didn’t have the same charm. Most animated films either have amazing visuals, humor or heart, and the best ones blend these essentials together. Unfortunately none of these elements are present in Hoodwinked Too to make the audience feel for Red’s story, and the semi-warm victory at the end is simply “meh”.
You won’t be missing anything by skipping this film at the box office. It might be worth a rental when it comes out on DVD, but you and your family can still live a full and satisfying life without it.
Curious George Goes Camping by i Read With
Book and Education
App
**A Children eBook Awards Silver Winner - Best Language Development and Early Childhood App** **A...
Heiner Muller After Shakespeare: Macbeth and Anatomy of Titus -- Fall of Rome
William Shakespeare, Carl Weber and Heiner Muller
Book
Heiner Muller After Shakespeare makes available for the first time Macbeth and Anatomy Titus Fall of...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 1, 2021
The fight is awesome (2 more)
Jia, the little deaf girl was perhaps the best human character in the movie
The visual effects and CGI are superb
The human storyline or B-plot (1 more)
A few things that didn't make sense plot wise and some major/minor plot holes
A Battle of Titans, God Versus King, Who Will Win?
I thought this movie was really good and it was a lot of fun. They fight more than once in the movie and there is a clear winner. I'm definitely glad I went to go check it out in theaters and get that authentic "full movie theater experience" and enjoy it the way that a movie with giant monsters should be seen. The movie started off really interesting right away with us seeing Kong in his natural environment on Skull Island, almost like time stood still for him since we last saw him in Kong: Skull Island. Though he did look older in appearance. Right away you realize things are very different as we see that Kong is being monitored by hidden surveillance cameras in the forest and he seems to have found himself a little friend in the young deaf girl who greets him. That's when we're thrown for a twist as Kong throws a tree that he ripped out of the ground at the sky and it shatters. We discover that Kong is inside a giant dome on Skull Island meant to hide him from Godzilla. We're then shown a montage of different graphics such as news articles and secret Monarch files of information on both Godzilla and Kong. It shows us that Godzilla and Kong have both defeated multiple Titans and are seemingly destined to fight each other as seen in the ancient cave paintings in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. I feel like this movie definitely had it's good parts and bad parts and while it was a ton of fun it also had quite a few flaws. I really liked the action sequences and monster fight scenes. The monsters seemed to move a lot better than in some of the other movies, especially Godzilla when compared to the first Godzilla (2014) movie. The parts where they fought were some of the best parts of the film. I feel like the human part of the movie wasn't so much glossed over but didn't really have anything that was very impactful. Nothing like the death of Ford's mother or Father in Godzilla (2014) or the soldiers in Kong: Skull Island or even scientist Ishiro Serizawa in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. In fact I feel that Millie Bobby Brown's character Madison Russell and her father, Dr. Mark Russell and the whole B-plot fell kind of flat or felt kind of unnecessary to the movie. There were also some major plot holes and things that didn't make sense to me that really brought the score down from it being a great movie but I'll go over that in the spoiler section. For me this movie was still really enjoyable and worth watching in theaters. It really delivered in what you wanted for a giant monster movie so if you're thinking about getting it on HBOMax, I got to say I give this movie my "must see seal of approval" and I give it a 7/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review was too long to post here so it can be found on my website or check out the review on YouTube.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review-7-10
https://youtu.be/3E3b1e8OqU4
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review was too long to post here so it can be found on my website or check out the review on YouTube.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review-7-10
https://youtu.be/3E3b1e8OqU4
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
A Good, Maybe Very Good, But Not Great Sequel
Did you enjoy the first A QUIET PLACE film? This horror/thriller from 2018 was unique in that it emphasized the suspense portion of the horror genre while relying, heavily, on sound (or the lack thereof).
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 2, 2021 (Updated Jun 3, 2021)
The Acting- great performances by both Emma Stone and Emma Thompson (2 more)
The costume designs and wardrobe were amazing to see
The soundtrack was phenomenal - great music
Original cartoon Cruella vs this Cruella (1 more)
The pacing was sparratic and movie ran a little too long
Part Devil Wears Prada, Part The Joker, Surprisingly Splendid
https://youtu.be/Ja_Cl-9IKNI
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Rowmote Pro: Remote Control for Mac
Utilities and Productivity
App
Rowmote Pro is the ultimate wireless remote, trackpad, and keyboard for Mac. A gorgeous universal...