Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Beautiful, quirky love story
THE SHAPE OF WATER is the most romantic, beautiful, charming, weird and wonderful love story that I have seen in a long, long time.
The fact that the love story is between a mute woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon makes it just that much more interesting.
From the fertile mind of Guillermo Del Toro (THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, PAN'S LABYRINTH), TSOW answers a question that a young Del Toro had when he first saw the 1950's creature feature CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. He thought, "what if the creature ended up with the girl?" In Del Toro's mind, the Creature was the leading man, not the generic hunk that was hunting him.
Wonderfully realized by Del Toro, TSOW tells the tale of mute cleaning woman, Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works at a "secret Government agency" in Baltimore. When she is asked to mop blood up in a highly classified area, she soon realizes that a "creature" is being held there. It is her realization that this creature is not just "some creature", but an intelligent being that starts this lonely, mute woman and the "creature" on the road to a loving relationship.
Hawkins is mesmerizing as Eliza. Obviously, with her character being mute, she must express herself in other ways - and she does. Her eyes are truly the window to her soul and Hawkins' ability to "eye act" is astounding, she conveys more feeling with a look and a glance than most actors can with a mountain of work.
She is strongly aided by some really good co-stars - Richard Jenkins is marvelous (as always) as Eliza's neighbor/friend who, himself, has a handicap - he is a gay man in the 1950's. The strength of Jenkins' performance is that he is able to overcome the trap of "the sympathetic gay best friend" and bring to the screen a complete character. Michael Stuhlbarg is watchable (as always) as the main scientist that studies the creature. Here is an actor that has grown in my eyes and he is a "must watch" in anything he is in. Michael Shannon is a presence as the main "heavy" in this film and though his character is pretty one-note, Shannon hits that note strongly and holds our attention. Unfortunately, compared to these 3 (and Hawkins' lead role), Octavia Spencer's talents are not put to the test as Eliza's co-worker. She is capable of so much more and her character is severely underwritten.
But, while strong characters are a must in a successful film, it is Del Toro's direction and "sense of place" that embue this fable with the character and detail it needs. Set in a 1950's that is a bit more idealistic/stylized than is real, Del Toro steers us through a world that is fascinating to watch - and be in - and makes it seem almost plausible that such a creature could exist and that a woman could fall in love with him.
Much like how I fell in love with this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The fact that the love story is between a mute woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon makes it just that much more interesting.
From the fertile mind of Guillermo Del Toro (THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, PAN'S LABYRINTH), TSOW answers a question that a young Del Toro had when he first saw the 1950's creature feature CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. He thought, "what if the creature ended up with the girl?" In Del Toro's mind, the Creature was the leading man, not the generic hunk that was hunting him.
Wonderfully realized by Del Toro, TSOW tells the tale of mute cleaning woman, Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works at a "secret Government agency" in Baltimore. When she is asked to mop blood up in a highly classified area, she soon realizes that a "creature" is being held there. It is her realization that this creature is not just "some creature", but an intelligent being that starts this lonely, mute woman and the "creature" on the road to a loving relationship.
Hawkins is mesmerizing as Eliza. Obviously, with her character being mute, she must express herself in other ways - and she does. Her eyes are truly the window to her soul and Hawkins' ability to "eye act" is astounding, she conveys more feeling with a look and a glance than most actors can with a mountain of work.
She is strongly aided by some really good co-stars - Richard Jenkins is marvelous (as always) as Eliza's neighbor/friend who, himself, has a handicap - he is a gay man in the 1950's. The strength of Jenkins' performance is that he is able to overcome the trap of "the sympathetic gay best friend" and bring to the screen a complete character. Michael Stuhlbarg is watchable (as always) as the main scientist that studies the creature. Here is an actor that has grown in my eyes and he is a "must watch" in anything he is in. Michael Shannon is a presence as the main "heavy" in this film and though his character is pretty one-note, Shannon hits that note strongly and holds our attention. Unfortunately, compared to these 3 (and Hawkins' lead role), Octavia Spencer's talents are not put to the test as Eliza's co-worker. She is capable of so much more and her character is severely underwritten.
But, while strong characters are a must in a successful film, it is Del Toro's direction and "sense of place" that embue this fable with the character and detail it needs. Set in a 1950's that is a bit more idealistic/stylized than is real, Del Toro steers us through a world that is fascinating to watch - and be in - and makes it seem almost plausible that such a creature could exist and that a woman could fall in love with him.
Much like how I fell in love with this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Jan 1, 2020
I’m not exactly complaining, but Tom Holland does seem to literally be in everything right now. As I sat ready to watch Spies in Disguise, which features the voice of Tom Holland, there was a trailer for upcoming Pixar movie Onward, featuring the voice of Tom Holland. Then a trailer for Dolittle, starring Robert Downey Jr and featuring the voice of Tom Holland as loyal dog Jip. On top of starring in 2019s highest grossing movie, as everyone’s favourite neighbourhood webslinger, he’s certainly having quite the year right now. And well deserved it is too.
But before we get to his voicing of Walter in Spies in Disguise, we meet much younger Walter, 14 years earlier, building gadgets and being branded a weirdo at school. His police officer mum comforts Walter, telling him that weird is good and the world needs weirdos. And that one day, the invention he’s just tested on his unsuspecting mum - a grenade which explodes into glitter and projects cute kittens - might just come in handy...
Will Smith on the other hand, hasn’t had quite as great a year as Tom Holland. Ridiculed for his blue genie in the run up to the release of Aladdin, he actually wasn’t too bad when the movie came out. But then came the disaster that was Gemini Man. Hopefully though, the upcoming sequel ‘Bad Boys for Life’ will be a return to form for Smith, but for now, starring as the voice of Lance Sterling, the worlds greatest spy, has certainly landed him a winner. A suave, charming, one man operation, we’re shown just how cool and impressive Sterling is as he single-handedly and effortlessly takes out dozens of bad guys using combat skills and a variety of spy gadgets. But Lance is suddenly caught off guard when, instead of releasing a more traditional explosive to take out some goons, he releases a glitter-kitty explosion.
Returning to headquarters a hero, we discover that Walter is now working in the gadgets department, where new tricks and toys for spies are designed and tested. Lance is not impressed with Walter messing up his operation and the pair don’t exactly hit it off on the right foot. But when Lance is wrongly accused of committing a crime, he must go on the run and reluctantly team up with Walter to get the bad guy and clear his name. And how is he going to do that without being seen and caught? Well, just so happens that Walter has invented a way of turning humans into pigeons!
There’s nothing particularly new about the main plot of Spies in Disguise, aside from the pigeon aspect of it all of course. But it’s the fast paced action and humour that really sets this apart from the crowd and quite often reminded me of The Incredibles - great characters and great ideas all mixed together with some impressive visuals and slick action. Both Tom Holland and Will Smith are perfect in their roles and, aside from a bit of a mid-movie dip, Spies in Disguise actually proved to be hugely entertaining.
But before we get to his voicing of Walter in Spies in Disguise, we meet much younger Walter, 14 years earlier, building gadgets and being branded a weirdo at school. His police officer mum comforts Walter, telling him that weird is good and the world needs weirdos. And that one day, the invention he’s just tested on his unsuspecting mum - a grenade which explodes into glitter and projects cute kittens - might just come in handy...
Will Smith on the other hand, hasn’t had quite as great a year as Tom Holland. Ridiculed for his blue genie in the run up to the release of Aladdin, he actually wasn’t too bad when the movie came out. But then came the disaster that was Gemini Man. Hopefully though, the upcoming sequel ‘Bad Boys for Life’ will be a return to form for Smith, but for now, starring as the voice of Lance Sterling, the worlds greatest spy, has certainly landed him a winner. A suave, charming, one man operation, we’re shown just how cool and impressive Sterling is as he single-handedly and effortlessly takes out dozens of bad guys using combat skills and a variety of spy gadgets. But Lance is suddenly caught off guard when, instead of releasing a more traditional explosive to take out some goons, he releases a glitter-kitty explosion.
Returning to headquarters a hero, we discover that Walter is now working in the gadgets department, where new tricks and toys for spies are designed and tested. Lance is not impressed with Walter messing up his operation and the pair don’t exactly hit it off on the right foot. But when Lance is wrongly accused of committing a crime, he must go on the run and reluctantly team up with Walter to get the bad guy and clear his name. And how is he going to do that without being seen and caught? Well, just so happens that Walter has invented a way of turning humans into pigeons!
There’s nothing particularly new about the main plot of Spies in Disguise, aside from the pigeon aspect of it all of course. But it’s the fast paced action and humour that really sets this apart from the crowd and quite often reminded me of The Incredibles - great characters and great ideas all mixed together with some impressive visuals and slick action. Both Tom Holland and Will Smith are perfect in their roles and, aside from a bit of a mid-movie dip, Spies in Disguise actually proved to be hugely entertaining.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Camelot Burning (Metal & Lace, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I don't know much about Arthurian Lore it's probably one of the only story I've never read in it's original form aside from the original Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales (but those are horrifying, so I'm not even going to bother). I somehow doubt that Magic Tree House who made Morgan LeFay a harmless fly or Wizard101's Avalonian world even counts, except for maybe the latter being used as visual aid. :p
But personally that's sort of the thrill in reading a retelling without reading the original one: no judging or comparing it's a mostly complete blank slate.
Camelot Burning follows Vivienne, a lady-in-waiting and Merlin's Apprentice, who wants a way out of Camelot's way of life. She even has a plan hatched at least until Morgan Le Fay enters the picture and she has to stay to build a weapon that could ultimately save Camelot.
Merlin is actually a fun character am I weird to say that I found him drunk yet wise? It's not an easy combo since most drunk people act... well, not wise at all. While I'm not exactly warm and fuzzy with the other characters yet, Merlin is a winner.
There's a very interesting way with magic Rose introduces. Usually when it comes to magic, the price is something minor or huge, depending on whatever is asked very similar to karma (or fate or etc.). Here though... it's the ultimate price if you use magic too much: *cues ominous music* your soul. That's like selling your soul to the devil! Unless you're a creepy villain who wants to take over the world, that's not usually the ultimate price. Minor = minor payback. Major = major payback. No ifs buts or wait, what's after that? o_O
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dV7rlbVhpPk/UyjGVWubEkI/AAAAAAAACyA/ngeF1DAiEmk/s1600/tumblr_m5x9n1xf3D1rqfhi2o1_500.gif"; height="143" width="200">
Behind the Blog Tidbit: Camelot Burning was one of those novels who got a neutral rating (rawly speaking). I would have rounded up to a 4.5 rather than a 4, but I chose not to for a few reasons:
~ Too predictable It could just be me, but I guessed that <spoiler>Vivienne was the coordinates to Avalon and Morgan Le Fay was acting innocent as a distraction.</spoiler>
~ Too much technicalities I felt like I was reading a foreign language, and that was not the words used in magic. It all felt really confusing.
~ It said The End.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lsFMKEdcrBc/UyjG4_6Sj3I/AAAAAAAACyM/Q0tKlJ9xOLw/s1600/th.jpg"; height="155" width="200">
That last bullet didn't play a major impact. It's just a minor peeve, especially when it's the first novel in the series.
I fully enjoyed reading Kathryn Rose's debut novel. Camelot Burning takes a refreshing and unique spin on Arthurian lore, or more accurately Arthurian + Fantasy + Steampunk.
-----------------
Advance Review Copy provided by Flux for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/arc-review-camelot-burning-by-kathryn-rose.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
But personally that's sort of the thrill in reading a retelling without reading the original one: no judging or comparing it's a mostly complete blank slate.
Camelot Burning follows Vivienne, a lady-in-waiting and Merlin's Apprentice, who wants a way out of Camelot's way of life. She even has a plan hatched at least until Morgan Le Fay enters the picture and she has to stay to build a weapon that could ultimately save Camelot.
Merlin is actually a fun character am I weird to say that I found him drunk yet wise? It's not an easy combo since most drunk people act... well, not wise at all. While I'm not exactly warm and fuzzy with the other characters yet, Merlin is a winner.
There's a very interesting way with magic Rose introduces. Usually when it comes to magic, the price is something minor or huge, depending on whatever is asked very similar to karma (or fate or etc.). Here though... it's the ultimate price if you use magic too much: *cues ominous music* your soul. That's like selling your soul to the devil! Unless you're a creepy villain who wants to take over the world, that's not usually the ultimate price. Minor = minor payback. Major = major payback. No ifs buts or wait, what's after that? o_O
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dV7rlbVhpPk/UyjGVWubEkI/AAAAAAAACyA/ngeF1DAiEmk/s1600/tumblr_m5x9n1xf3D1rqfhi2o1_500.gif"; height="143" width="200">
Behind the Blog Tidbit: Camelot Burning was one of those novels who got a neutral rating (rawly speaking). I would have rounded up to a 4.5 rather than a 4, but I chose not to for a few reasons:
~ Too predictable It could just be me, but I guessed that <spoiler>Vivienne was the coordinates to Avalon and Morgan Le Fay was acting innocent as a distraction.</spoiler>
~ Too much technicalities I felt like I was reading a foreign language, and that was not the words used in magic. It all felt really confusing.
~ It said The End.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lsFMKEdcrBc/UyjG4_6Sj3I/AAAAAAAACyM/Q0tKlJ9xOLw/s1600/th.jpg"; height="155" width="200">
That last bullet didn't play a major impact. It's just a minor peeve, especially when it's the first novel in the series.
I fully enjoyed reading Kathryn Rose's debut novel. Camelot Burning takes a refreshing and unique spin on Arthurian lore, or more accurately Arthurian + Fantasy + Steampunk.
-----------------
Advance Review Copy provided by Flux for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/arc-review-camelot-burning-by-kathryn-rose.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Conduit (The Gryphon Series) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I am making progress in the 2014 TBR Pile Challenge and cleaning out my Kindle. Of course, the latter will take quite a long time, but... I'll get there. ;) *rubs hands together as though ready to make an evil potion*
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SQb9SIzFTks/U0LIMksTnDI/AAAAAAAAC9Q/SY6SL5DMywI/s1600/I+Put+a+Spell+on+You.gif"; height="144" width="320">
Celeste Garrett just wants to be a normal teenager getting ready to go to college. But shortly after she and her siblings move to a small town in Tennessee with their Grandmother, strange things start happening to them. They later found out about a deal one of their ancestors made with a mythical creature called "the Gryphon" and that Celeste is the Chosen One to stop a war from happening.
The Conduit is a really fun book lots of LOL moments, and a bookwyrming confession: It's really hard to make feel things crying, laughing, etc when it comes to writing. Speaking's another story, and that is exactly how I got the name Giggles back in 6th grade (vocal variations, come on! Some people make things sound funny, okay?!). At least for me it is.
But let's just say my very first worry after reading the prologue was the last few sentences:
<blockquote>Gainesboro, Tennessee. Thats where it all happened. Thats where I learned the truth. Thats where everything changed. Thats where my destiny found me. And now, its where I would die.</blockquote>
NOOOOO. Want to know why I was worried? Take a look *points to a particular book* Yeah. THAT book. When you hear the word die, you get worried. Very worried. Of course, in that other case, it was a bomb.
The characters go really great together Celeste (I've been wondering how to pronounce her name CORRECTLY, and even though I have a guess, I'm not 100% sure) and her siblings Gabe and Kendall are like the 3 Stooges. I even had to be really careful not to wake up my mom because of those random scenes that just pop in and made me laugh.
<blockquote>I was cold, tired , confused , scared, overwhelmed, and I kind of had to pee.</blockquote>
And that, my friends, is the perfect time to toss in those TMI moments. All so serious and then tossing in something completely random and sort of out of whack. Maybe I'm just a weird person. :p
Even Grams was a fun character in her own way, though she actually reminded me of a certain Super Bowl commercial from Taco Bell with those old people dancing (and partying) my speech teacher showed to us in class while talking about persuasion. She's like a teenager stuck in the wrong age or something. (Eye candy! *oggles* at Zeke Crosse)
---------------
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
This Review and more posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-the-conduit-by-stacey-rourke.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SQb9SIzFTks/U0LIMksTnDI/AAAAAAAAC9Q/SY6SL5DMywI/s1600/I+Put+a+Spell+on+You.gif"; height="144" width="320">
Celeste Garrett just wants to be a normal teenager getting ready to go to college. But shortly after she and her siblings move to a small town in Tennessee with their Grandmother, strange things start happening to them. They later found out about a deal one of their ancestors made with a mythical creature called "the Gryphon" and that Celeste is the Chosen One to stop a war from happening.
The Conduit is a really fun book lots of LOL moments, and a bookwyrming confession: It's really hard to make feel things crying, laughing, etc when it comes to writing. Speaking's another story, and that is exactly how I got the name Giggles back in 6th grade (vocal variations, come on! Some people make things sound funny, okay?!). At least for me it is.
But let's just say my very first worry after reading the prologue was the last few sentences:
<blockquote>Gainesboro, Tennessee. Thats where it all happened. Thats where I learned the truth. Thats where everything changed. Thats where my destiny found me. And now, its where I would die.</blockquote>
NOOOOO. Want to know why I was worried? Take a look *points to a particular book* Yeah. THAT book. When you hear the word die, you get worried. Very worried. Of course, in that other case, it was a bomb.
The characters go really great together Celeste (I've been wondering how to pronounce her name CORRECTLY, and even though I have a guess, I'm not 100% sure) and her siblings Gabe and Kendall are like the 3 Stooges. I even had to be really careful not to wake up my mom because of those random scenes that just pop in and made me laugh.
<blockquote>I was cold, tired , confused , scared, overwhelmed, and I kind of had to pee.</blockquote>
And that, my friends, is the perfect time to toss in those TMI moments. All so serious and then tossing in something completely random and sort of out of whack. Maybe I'm just a weird person. :p
Even Grams was a fun character in her own way, though she actually reminded me of a certain Super Bowl commercial from Taco Bell with those old people dancing (and partying) my speech teacher showed to us in class while talking about persuasion. She's like a teenager stuck in the wrong age or something. (Eye candy! *oggles* at Zeke Crosse)
---------------
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
This Review and more posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-the-conduit-by-stacey-rourke.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Airplane! in Apps
Mar 27, 2020
Holds Up Well
Doctor: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Aug 3, 2019)
WBs second entry into the DCEU is a messy misstep.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's the big one that comic fans have been waiting decades to see come to life on the big screen, the one that was infamously teased in I Am Legend, the one that was going to match The Dark Knight Returns, and it's just oh so dissapointing.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The LEGO Movie (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Could The LEGO Movie just be considered one hour and a half long commercial for a children’s toy product? Absolutely. Does that make the movie any less entertaining? Nope! I grew up in the eighties. A time when toy manufacturers would make TV shows, mixing up entertainment with advertising in the tender minds of their youth demographic, and doing it well. We seem to be in a new age of that very same ethos of ultra-marketing, only now we have the internet to exacerbate the matter. That all said, The LEGO Movie is perhaps one of the cleverest, funniest, and perhaps most creative films I’ve seen in a long while. It’s enjoyable, fresh, and seems to celebrate with reckless abandon the joyous chaos of childhood play over the blind consumption of product.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Casino Royale (1967) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
It Gets Real Bad
Here’s what Rotten Tomatoes has to say because I couldn’t begin to tell you what this shit-show is about: “This James Bond spoof features the hero coming out of retirement to attempt to fix some problems for SMERSH, while a multitude of other subplots unwind about the central figure.” Yeah, even RT was having trouble trying to figure out what the hell was going on with the 1967 Casino Royale. How bad is it? Well, let’s just say I just finished reading a list of the Top 100 Worst Movies of All Time and I was very surprised to not see this movie on there.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) in Movies
Nov 16, 2020
The first 10 or so minutes of Resident Evil: Apocalypse are quite good. Raccoon City in panic, Jill Valentine and Carlos Oliveira, a few mentions of this movies big bad - an adaption of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is something I am keen for. The whole set up isn't too bad, and then we get to a scene set in a church, Jill Valentine surrounded by Lickers, completely out of ammo, and then...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
