Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Ken Miles was the greatest racer of the era, the problem with him was always his attitude, never wanting to follow rules almost blacklisting him from most teams around the world, his wife wants him to race, his son looks up to him and Carroll knows he is the best man for the job, he help design the car with Carroll and his team and must prove himself on the track to get the drive at Le Mans. Carroll Shelby won Le Mans, retired from the racing side of the sport to start designing the cars, he is considered the best in America and is pick by Ford to design their race car, he will challenge the order of things because he knows he can achieve this, if he is given the chance to select who he wants in the car. Mollie is the ever-supportive wife of Ken, she wants him to drive knowing he will get bored if he doesn’t, she only asks that he is honest with her, she odes also get a great driving scene. we do get to meet plenty of executives from Ford, who each have their own agenda with Leo Beebe being made out to be the villain of the team, while Henry Ford II is made out to be strict, but will accept honesty.
Performances – Christian Bale and Matt Damon are both fantastic proving to everyone why they are considered two of the best in the business today, they have great individual moments as well as banter between them. Outside of the two big names, nobody does get to reach their level and everybody is a joy to watch in their roles.
Story – The story here follows Henry Ford II desire to beat Enzo Ferrari in the Le Mans 24-hour race, we see him hire a former winner turned designer to build his car, as the two sides do battle to get Ken Miles behind the wheel, in an attempt to make history. This does show how an American decided he would rather push the limits of his bank than improve the product he was making as we see how Ford changed the racing world that Ferrari had been dominating for decades and how faith in a driver is often more important that having the fastest car. The story is told over a couple of years, we get to see the important turns in the battle between Carroll and Ford’s executives to get the best driver behind the wheel, before letting us just sit back and enjoy the races. It could have had a little bit of the story chopped down to save some time though.
Action/Biopic/Sport – The action mixes with the sport wonderfully to give us edge of the seat race moments that will be the highlight of the film, while the biopic side of the film seems to focus more on the car side of things only, while Ken does have a family, we really don’t learn anything else about Carroll outside of his work.
Settings – The film recreates the iconic race track perfectly and shows us how the time relevant cars were used in nearly every scene of the film, on and off the track.
Scene of the Movie – Le Mans Race.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Give us subtitles for the Ferrari scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is a high speed biopic that doesn’t let you breath through most of the action involved, it has brilliant performances from the whole cast and is a must watch for any motor sports fans.
Overall: Motor Sports Fans Must Watch.
Performances – Christian Bale and Matt Damon are both fantastic proving to everyone why they are considered two of the best in the business today, they have great individual moments as well as banter between them. Outside of the two big names, nobody does get to reach their level and everybody is a joy to watch in their roles.
Story – The story here follows Henry Ford II desire to beat Enzo Ferrari in the Le Mans 24-hour race, we see him hire a former winner turned designer to build his car, as the two sides do battle to get Ken Miles behind the wheel, in an attempt to make history. This does show how an American decided he would rather push the limits of his bank than improve the product he was making as we see how Ford changed the racing world that Ferrari had been dominating for decades and how faith in a driver is often more important that having the fastest car. The story is told over a couple of years, we get to see the important turns in the battle between Carroll and Ford’s executives to get the best driver behind the wheel, before letting us just sit back and enjoy the races. It could have had a little bit of the story chopped down to save some time though.
Action/Biopic/Sport – The action mixes with the sport wonderfully to give us edge of the seat race moments that will be the highlight of the film, while the biopic side of the film seems to focus more on the car side of things only, while Ken does have a family, we really don’t learn anything else about Carroll outside of his work.
Settings – The film recreates the iconic race track perfectly and shows us how the time relevant cars were used in nearly every scene of the film, on and off the track.
Scene of the Movie – Le Mans Race.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Give us subtitles for the Ferrari scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is a high speed biopic that doesn’t let you breath through most of the action involved, it has brilliant performances from the whole cast and is a must watch for any motor sports fans.
Overall: Motor Sports Fans Must Watch.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Nov 14, 2019
This sort of soft reboot of Hellboy is a truly mixed bag. It's just about watchable, and there are some things I liked, and a whole heap of things I didn't like.
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure 👍
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure 👍
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
In this day and age, where Star Wars is beloved by so many, and more recently met with sighs and trepidation by just as many, it's a franchise that easily faces scrutiny.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Steve Jobs (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Steve Jobs is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Danny Boyle, stars Micheal Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Incredibly dull and predictable
Antebellum is a 2020 thriller film from debut writer directors Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, the trailer for which implied it was a mind bending, time travelling horror story set during the times of slavery in America. However Antebellum never manages to live up to what it promised, instead turning out to be a rather dull and predictable affair.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Six Crimson Cranes in Books
Jun 17, 2021
Wow!
Where do I start?
Wow!
In a kingdom which has banned magic and banished all demons to the Holy Mountains, Princess Shiori must hide her magical blood from those around her, in particular her six brothers, her mysterious stepmother and her father, the Emperor.
However, when a combination of magic and stubbornness derails Shiori’s betrothal ceremony the princess discovers that she is not the only family member hiding their gift. After spying on her stepmother, Shiori is convinced that her father’s wife is a demon and turns to her brothers…with disastrous consequences.
With her six brothers transformed into cranes, Shiori is alone, cast far away from the palace and forced to remain mute: for every word she utters, one brother will die! She is also unrecognisable, her magic is locked and she cannot reveal her past to anyone. Powerless, abandoned and mute- can Shiori save her six older brothers and return home to defeat her stepmother?
Shiori herself is an amazing protagonist. She is young, impulsive, stubborn but also has the biggest heart. Her love for her brothers (and food) is integral to her personality and the comfort she takes in the memories of her mother is beautiful.
Initially, Shiori’s life may appear to be a fairytale with extravagant robes and magnificent palaces. Maybe that is why Lim creates a fairytale-worthy curse? With a lost voice, a lost pink slipper and a city put to sleep, Elizabeth Lim certainly showcases some of the magic we saw in her Disney Twisted Tale novels.
Shiori’s journey to save her brothers is one of tremendous bravery and courage and it is along this path that the princess truly discovers her inner strength. She also matures immensely (it’s probably inevitable when your stepmother curses you) but Shiori experiences the hardships of the world around her, learns who to trust and realises that sometimes poison (or a curse) can be a “medicine in disguise”.
The supporting cast within Six Crimson Cranes are also incredible. Seryu the dragon prince with his ruby eyes and green hair clearly cares for Shiori. Will he try to sway her affections in book two? He will have to compete with Takkan, the loyal, picture-perfect prince who protected Shiori when no-one else did, long before he knew her true identity.
Shiori’s stepmother, Raikama, was possibly the most complex character. Despite only being present at the beginning and end of the novel, she spends 90% of the book as a villain – and the reader is fully on board with this! However, Lim’s ingenious use of Shiori’s faint memories help her piece together an unfathomable puzzle: why would Raikama curse the siblings instead of killing them? Is this linked to her stepmother’s magic and her mysterious past?
The world building in Six Crimson Cranes is magical. Without breaking the flow of the novel Lim perfectly creates the kingdom of Kiata in our minds, from the manicured grounds of the palace during the Summer Festival, with kites bobbing against azure skies, to the bleak but beautiful Iro, overlooked by Rabbit mountain, glittering in the light of the silver moon. Elizabeth Lim truly transports her readers to these beautiful but dangerous landscapes.
Six Crimson Cranes is a book which surpassed all my expectations. The world building is as magical as its fairy-tale undertones and the characters already feel like old friends. I don’t think I can wait another year for the sequel!
Thank you so so much to Netgalley for providing this amazing opportunity! I received a free digital copy of this book in exchange for an honest review…and now I’m off to pre-order the real thing!
Where do I start?
Wow!
In a kingdom which has banned magic and banished all demons to the Holy Mountains, Princess Shiori must hide her magical blood from those around her, in particular her six brothers, her mysterious stepmother and her father, the Emperor.
However, when a combination of magic and stubbornness derails Shiori’s betrothal ceremony the princess discovers that she is not the only family member hiding their gift. After spying on her stepmother, Shiori is convinced that her father’s wife is a demon and turns to her brothers…with disastrous consequences.
With her six brothers transformed into cranes, Shiori is alone, cast far away from the palace and forced to remain mute: for every word she utters, one brother will die! She is also unrecognisable, her magic is locked and she cannot reveal her past to anyone. Powerless, abandoned and mute- can Shiori save her six older brothers and return home to defeat her stepmother?
Shiori herself is an amazing protagonist. She is young, impulsive, stubborn but also has the biggest heart. Her love for her brothers (and food) is integral to her personality and the comfort she takes in the memories of her mother is beautiful.
Initially, Shiori’s life may appear to be a fairytale with extravagant robes and magnificent palaces. Maybe that is why Lim creates a fairytale-worthy curse? With a lost voice, a lost pink slipper and a city put to sleep, Elizabeth Lim certainly showcases some of the magic we saw in her Disney Twisted Tale novels.
Shiori’s journey to save her brothers is one of tremendous bravery and courage and it is along this path that the princess truly discovers her inner strength. She also matures immensely (it’s probably inevitable when your stepmother curses you) but Shiori experiences the hardships of the world around her, learns who to trust and realises that sometimes poison (or a curse) can be a “medicine in disguise”.
The supporting cast within Six Crimson Cranes are also incredible. Seryu the dragon prince with his ruby eyes and green hair clearly cares for Shiori. Will he try to sway her affections in book two? He will have to compete with Takkan, the loyal, picture-perfect prince who protected Shiori when no-one else did, long before he knew her true identity.
Shiori’s stepmother, Raikama, was possibly the most complex character. Despite only being present at the beginning and end of the novel, she spends 90% of the book as a villain – and the reader is fully on board with this! However, Lim’s ingenious use of Shiori’s faint memories help her piece together an unfathomable puzzle: why would Raikama curse the siblings instead of killing them? Is this linked to her stepmother’s magic and her mysterious past?
The world building in Six Crimson Cranes is magical. Without breaking the flow of the novel Lim perfectly creates the kingdom of Kiata in our minds, from the manicured grounds of the palace during the Summer Festival, with kites bobbing against azure skies, to the bleak but beautiful Iro, overlooked by Rabbit mountain, glittering in the light of the silver moon. Elizabeth Lim truly transports her readers to these beautiful but dangerous landscapes.
Six Crimson Cranes is a book which surpassed all my expectations. The world building is as magical as its fairy-tale undertones and the characters already feel like old friends. I don’t think I can wait another year for the sequel!
Thank you so so much to Netgalley for providing this amazing opportunity! I received a free digital copy of this book in exchange for an honest review…and now I’m off to pre-order the real thing!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A powerful force is hidden on Earth, three Mother Boxes, previously used by Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons in an attempt to conquer Earth. As the planet mourns the loss of Superman the power is ignited again and triggers Steppenwolf's return to Earth. When Themyscira is attacked and their Mother Box is stolen, Queen Hippolyta warns her daughter of what is to come.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Peterloo was a daunting prospect even before getting into the screen. 154 minutes... that's 2 hours and 34 minutes of a very bleak piece of history.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Queens Corgi is an animated children's movie about Rex, the Queen's favourite who, after a disastrous visit from Donald Trump, is tricked into leaving the palace and winds up in the dog pound. This is a common formula in children’s movies both animated and live action and I'm sure most of us can guess what happens next, Rex tries to get back home and, on the way makes some friends and falls in love. So when my daughter wanted to see it I though I'd be in for a funny, possibly sad film. God I was wrong. There is so much wrong with this film and it all seems to go wrong from the scene where Donald Trump visits the Queen and I really wish I could say my problems were politically motivated but unfortunately the film was just that bad.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.