Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Paddington (2015) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
Thoughts on Paddington
Characters – Paddington is the Peruvian bear we have all gotten to know from our childhoods, he travels to London in search for an explorer that met his Uncle and Aunt, what he finds is a busy city that has no time for stranger until he meets the Brown family. Paddington is learning about a new world in London, which sees his curiosity getting him stuck in a pickle more often than not, with his love of marmalade being the cause of most of his troubles. Henry Brown is the father that has taken Paddington in reluctantly, he has been working in risk assessment which doesn’t make a bear in the house seem safe, Paddington will help unlock the wild side that Henry once had in his youth before becoming a father. Mary is the mother who wants to take Paddington in, her heart is what makes her the reason the family will let him in, always wanting to do the right thing. Millicent works at the natural history museum, she wants Paddington so she can stuff him and add him to the collection at the museum, always thinking about herself and her family’s legacy.
Performances – Hugh Bonneville as the strict father shown that he isn’t willing to take a change, he goes against everything going with Paddington, only to show just how different a man can be once hit with parenthood. Sally Hawkins brings the light to the film as the caring mother. Nicole Kidman looks like she is enjoying the villainous figure in the film, which does show terrifying moments for the family film. Ben Whishaw does make the voice of Paddington a pleasure to watch through the film, handling the comedy very well.
Story – The story brings the character of Paddington bear to modern day London, where he must learn to fit in while alluding an evil taxidermist. We did need to keep the story simple for the first part of the chapter here, bringing Paddington to a modern London is a fresh spin because the original story was a different time, different minds and now everybody is so busy in their lives they barely notice a bear at a train station. We do get to see how Paddington must adjust to life in London, getting himself into trouble both in and out the house, but shows that his good-natured side will keep the family together, while the villain does have a good motivation which does play into the history of the natural history museum and just how twisted the reality behind it actually is. We do also have a strong theme that shows us just how difficult deforestation will be on animal families around the world, with Paddington being a victim of this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure takes Paddington around the world to a new family, new country and new culture, seeing how he learns plays into the comedy of the film which will get laughs of the pickles he finds himself involved in.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London, it shows just how big the city is for people who have never been there before, the Natural History museum is used well to show moments of fear in the film too.
Special Effects – Paddington being placed into the world looks fantastic, he never looks out of place which shows just how well the effects team worked to make this look seamless.
Scene of the Movie – Using the facilities.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That jungle music line, seems completely out of place in this movie.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun family film that does bring to life one of the most famous childhood characters, it is filled with heart and brings the modernisation vision to the story with ease.
Overall: Family Fun Film.
Characters – Paddington is the Peruvian bear we have all gotten to know from our childhoods, he travels to London in search for an explorer that met his Uncle and Aunt, what he finds is a busy city that has no time for stranger until he meets the Brown family. Paddington is learning about a new world in London, which sees his curiosity getting him stuck in a pickle more often than not, with his love of marmalade being the cause of most of his troubles. Henry Brown is the father that has taken Paddington in reluctantly, he has been working in risk assessment which doesn’t make a bear in the house seem safe, Paddington will help unlock the wild side that Henry once had in his youth before becoming a father. Mary is the mother who wants to take Paddington in, her heart is what makes her the reason the family will let him in, always wanting to do the right thing. Millicent works at the natural history museum, she wants Paddington so she can stuff him and add him to the collection at the museum, always thinking about herself and her family’s legacy.
Performances – Hugh Bonneville as the strict father shown that he isn’t willing to take a change, he goes against everything going with Paddington, only to show just how different a man can be once hit with parenthood. Sally Hawkins brings the light to the film as the caring mother. Nicole Kidman looks like she is enjoying the villainous figure in the film, which does show terrifying moments for the family film. Ben Whishaw does make the voice of Paddington a pleasure to watch through the film, handling the comedy very well.
Story – The story brings the character of Paddington bear to modern day London, where he must learn to fit in while alluding an evil taxidermist. We did need to keep the story simple for the first part of the chapter here, bringing Paddington to a modern London is a fresh spin because the original story was a different time, different minds and now everybody is so busy in their lives they barely notice a bear at a train station. We do get to see how Paddington must adjust to life in London, getting himself into trouble both in and out the house, but shows that his good-natured side will keep the family together, while the villain does have a good motivation which does play into the history of the natural history museum and just how twisted the reality behind it actually is. We do also have a strong theme that shows us just how difficult deforestation will be on animal families around the world, with Paddington being a victim of this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure takes Paddington around the world to a new family, new country and new culture, seeing how he learns plays into the comedy of the film which will get laughs of the pickles he finds himself involved in.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London, it shows just how big the city is for people who have never been there before, the Natural History museum is used well to show moments of fear in the film too.
Special Effects – Paddington being placed into the world looks fantastic, he never looks out of place which shows just how well the effects team worked to make this look seamless.
Scene of the Movie – Using the facilities.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That jungle music line, seems completely out of place in this movie.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun family film that does bring to life one of the most famous childhood characters, it is filled with heart and brings the modernisation vision to the story with ease.
Overall: Family Fun Film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Safe House (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a complicated deadly game of international espionage things are rarely what they appear to be. Take the case of Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a young man who, for all intents and purposes, appears to divide his time between his adoring French girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder) and a South African hospital. But if one were to pull back the curtain they would learn that Matt is actually a CIA agent who spends his time watching over a safe house, an assignment of painfully tedious monotony.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eight Legged Freaks (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: Eight Legged Freaks starts by showing us the Mike Parker (Terra) visiting Joshua the spider expert of the town who has been feeding his spiders enlarged crickets and of course they now escape. One week later when Mike goes to return his mother Sheriff Samantha Parker (Wuhrer) stops the visit because of waste being dumped into the local watering hole.
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Wheels (2014) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 12, 2020)
According to the film’s IMDb page, this low budget indie production, filmed in Los Angeles is the greatest film of all time! A month ago it sat at 9.3, which is better than The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption! As I am writing and compiling a book about the best 200 films of the 21st century, up to the end of 2019, I was obliged to check this out. With almost 18,000 votes to its name, there must be something in it being rated that highly, right?
Well, obviously not. Someone smart behind the film, listed variously as a 2014 or 2017 production, depending on where you look, had clearly gone out of their way to manipulate its online presence in the hope of gaining viewers. Look, it worked – I watched it, and now I’m writing about it. Pretty shameful really, as you find that almost no website has a bad review or rating for it out there; it has pretty much been scrubbed clean. How they did it, I do not know, but it is indefensible to be honest. The real shame being that it isn’t a bad film for the budget at all, and may have got more views and respect the old fashioned way.
The story revolves around a recently paralysed man becoming suicidal and finding another guy in a wheelchair to ask if he will blow his brains out with a gun. From there the two go on a rampage of drug addiction, self harm and anti-social misbehaviour. For every cliche in there, there is another moment which is quite well done, and although you can see the cracks here and there it is mostly a watchable and enjoyable film, with some laughs and some genuine emotion. Acting wise, the two leads (writer and co-director Donavon Warren and Patrick Hume) have their moments too; perhaps lacking anything hugely inciteful, but certainly competent enough to compare favourably to some higher profile movies.
Ultimately, it is merely fine. Not something you would recommend or especially remember, but not a complete waste of 2 hours either. It is clearly going for the idea that disabled people are helpless victims on its head, and does largely succeed in not condescending or amping up the pity. That doesn’t stop either of them being unlikable people, however – perhaps that is the point.
More interesting than the film by far is how these guys manipulated the publicity system to get it seen. So many films worth seeing drift into obscurity for lack of money, take the films of Shane Caruth, Primer and Upstream Color. Both incredible, original and intelligent movies that no one saw, and only word of mouth many years later puts them on anyone’s radar. Then there are the endless festival films that do the rounds and can’t pick up distribution, no matter how good. Perhaps a film like Wheels needs to employ these kind of tactics to survive. It is really a question of ethics. I have to say, as an honest reviewer, it does bother me that fake ratings and reviews can exist and slip under the wire. But maybe that is just me…?
Well, obviously not. Someone smart behind the film, listed variously as a 2014 or 2017 production, depending on where you look, had clearly gone out of their way to manipulate its online presence in the hope of gaining viewers. Look, it worked – I watched it, and now I’m writing about it. Pretty shameful really, as you find that almost no website has a bad review or rating for it out there; it has pretty much been scrubbed clean. How they did it, I do not know, but it is indefensible to be honest. The real shame being that it isn’t a bad film for the budget at all, and may have got more views and respect the old fashioned way.
The story revolves around a recently paralysed man becoming suicidal and finding another guy in a wheelchair to ask if he will blow his brains out with a gun. From there the two go on a rampage of drug addiction, self harm and anti-social misbehaviour. For every cliche in there, there is another moment which is quite well done, and although you can see the cracks here and there it is mostly a watchable and enjoyable film, with some laughs and some genuine emotion. Acting wise, the two leads (writer and co-director Donavon Warren and Patrick Hume) have their moments too; perhaps lacking anything hugely inciteful, but certainly competent enough to compare favourably to some higher profile movies.
Ultimately, it is merely fine. Not something you would recommend or especially remember, but not a complete waste of 2 hours either. It is clearly going for the idea that disabled people are helpless victims on its head, and does largely succeed in not condescending or amping up the pity. That doesn’t stop either of them being unlikable people, however – perhaps that is the point.
More interesting than the film by far is how these guys manipulated the publicity system to get it seen. So many films worth seeing drift into obscurity for lack of money, take the films of Shane Caruth, Primer and Upstream Color. Both incredible, original and intelligent movies that no one saw, and only word of mouth many years later puts them on anyone’s radar. Then there are the endless festival films that do the rounds and can’t pick up distribution, no matter how good. Perhaps a film like Wheels needs to employ these kind of tactics to survive. It is really a question of ethics. I have to say, as an honest reviewer, it does bother me that fake ratings and reviews can exist and slip under the wire. But maybe that is just me…?
Ronyell (38 KP) rated How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Jim Carrey Grinch!
In the town of Whoville, all the Whos were getting ready it celebrate Christmas, but there was one Who that was curious about the true meaning of Christmas and that was Cindy Lou Who herself. Not only was Cindy Lou wondering about the true meaning of Christmas, but she was curious about one person who doesn't live in Whoville and that's the Grinch himself. The Whos almost never talk about the Grinch or want to be reminded of him, but Cindy Lou wanted to be friends with the Grinch and tried to invite him to the Whoville celebration. But, when the Grinch is humiliated at the celebration, he decided that he will steal all the Whos' presents on Christmas Eve.
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miami Vice (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1984 a show arrived on NBC that instantly became a media sensation and set new standards for television dramas, as well as for music and fashion as it soon became a cultural icon.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated What Men Want (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Who wouldn't want to know what goes through a man's mind on occasion? Actually, you know what... I'm fine, I'm not sure I really want to hear everything... *shudder*
Ali is looking for the recognition she deserves for the hard work she puts in. She's successful, but in an office full of men she might not get out of her lane and be equal with the men around her. Without the supernatural twist the outcome could have eventually been the same, but that wouldn't have made for such an entertaining movie.
What Men Want is entirely predictable, after all we saw it all before in What Women Want but it's also like a whole bunch of romcoms out there. Character encounters an obstacle, character finds romance, character finds a way to fix the obstacle and in the process of that mucks up romance, obstacle gets fixed, character realises that none of it is worthwhile without romance and gets them back with big gesture, The End.
Taraji P. Henson is right up near the top of my favourite actresses, she's got so many great performances under her belt. Ali isn't going to appear very near the top of that list. Everything in Ali, as well as the film, seems to be at opposite ends of the scale. When we have comedy it sometimes feels over the top, when we have real life it's serious. Had there been more of a balance I think we could have had a better result. That being said, I thought she was great, she's very good at visual acting.
When it comes to the supporting cast it doesn't quite hit the spot. Again, this is partly due to the Jekyll and Hyde nature of everything. You've got characters who are serious, textbook romcomers, some for comedy and a handful of sports stars doing cameos, it's difficult to make them all gel. Pete Davidson and Tracy Morgan in both stick out from the rest because they bring quite a harsh comedy which I didn't find all that entertaining.
On the flip side though I was pleased to see Aldis Hodge make an appearance, he's got just the right amount of humour and serious in there and against Henson in scenes he works particularly well. Josh Brener also brought something fun to the mix, and possibly had the best part overall. Getting to sit on both sides of the storyline allows him to interact in fun ways with Ali when she's discovering her abilities as well as later on when he's trying to hide his inner thoughts.
Speaking of which, men's inner thoughts throughout aren't badly done, though there's the occasional over the top effort. Jamal Barry/Shane Paul McGhie had the winner for me when he was meeting his sporting hero though.
Looking back at this film I think I'm actually talking it out of stars in my head. I enjoyed it a lot at the cinema, it was funny (if a little excessive at times) and it eventually shows Ali being able to empower herself even if she does cock it up along the way. It flowed well and I wasn't finding myself urging it along... but... it's not a massively consistent film. The storyline with her female friends in obviously essential to the beginning but its addition later on holds little impact apart from giving her multiple points to claim some redemption.
I can honestly say that on first viewing I was amused and entertained, but I'm not sure how well it would hold up to a second.
What you should do
When talking to people who have seen What Men Want it is fairly consistent, men tend not to like it while women say they found it entertaining (admittedly that's somewhere between 2.5 and 4 stars). I think it's worth watching, and it would probably make a good film for a girls night.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've completely talked myself out of hearing men's thoughts so maybe box seats instead?
Ali is looking for the recognition she deserves for the hard work she puts in. She's successful, but in an office full of men she might not get out of her lane and be equal with the men around her. Without the supernatural twist the outcome could have eventually been the same, but that wouldn't have made for such an entertaining movie.
What Men Want is entirely predictable, after all we saw it all before in What Women Want but it's also like a whole bunch of romcoms out there. Character encounters an obstacle, character finds romance, character finds a way to fix the obstacle and in the process of that mucks up romance, obstacle gets fixed, character realises that none of it is worthwhile without romance and gets them back with big gesture, The End.
Taraji P. Henson is right up near the top of my favourite actresses, she's got so many great performances under her belt. Ali isn't going to appear very near the top of that list. Everything in Ali, as well as the film, seems to be at opposite ends of the scale. When we have comedy it sometimes feels over the top, when we have real life it's serious. Had there been more of a balance I think we could have had a better result. That being said, I thought she was great, she's very good at visual acting.
When it comes to the supporting cast it doesn't quite hit the spot. Again, this is partly due to the Jekyll and Hyde nature of everything. You've got characters who are serious, textbook romcomers, some for comedy and a handful of sports stars doing cameos, it's difficult to make them all gel. Pete Davidson and Tracy Morgan in both stick out from the rest because they bring quite a harsh comedy which I didn't find all that entertaining.
On the flip side though I was pleased to see Aldis Hodge make an appearance, he's got just the right amount of humour and serious in there and against Henson in scenes he works particularly well. Josh Brener also brought something fun to the mix, and possibly had the best part overall. Getting to sit on both sides of the storyline allows him to interact in fun ways with Ali when she's discovering her abilities as well as later on when he's trying to hide his inner thoughts.
Speaking of which, men's inner thoughts throughout aren't badly done, though there's the occasional over the top effort. Jamal Barry/Shane Paul McGhie had the winner for me when he was meeting his sporting hero though.
Looking back at this film I think I'm actually talking it out of stars in my head. I enjoyed it a lot at the cinema, it was funny (if a little excessive at times) and it eventually shows Ali being able to empower herself even if she does cock it up along the way. It flowed well and I wasn't finding myself urging it along... but... it's not a massively consistent film. The storyline with her female friends in obviously essential to the beginning but its addition later on holds little impact apart from giving her multiple points to claim some redemption.
I can honestly say that on first viewing I was amused and entertained, but I'm not sure how well it would hold up to a second.
What you should do
When talking to people who have seen What Men Want it is fairly consistent, men tend not to like it while women say they found it entertaining (admittedly that's somewhere between 2.5 and 4 stars). I think it's worth watching, and it would probably make a good film for a girls night.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've completely talked myself out of hearing men's thoughts so maybe box seats instead?
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Trading Places (1983) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Great 80's Comedy
The Duke Brothers, kings of the stock exchange, wager a bet on whether or not a poor man with no experience can succeed in running their brokerage firm. It's a solid comedy that relies on human nature to help tell its story.
Acting: 10
A mixture of familiar faces and a few fresh ones, performances are stellar from top to bottom. It's what you expect when true professionals come together to put on a show. Eddie Murphy's comedic timing is on point as always, playing the role of homeless man Billy Ray Valentine. Just listening to him tell his story in prison about the Quart of Blood Technique had me in stitches. He has a way of being funny in a nonchalant way, reminding me of some of my closest friends.
Denholm Elliott won my heart as the lovable butler Coleman. He's kindhearted, but can be hilariously cruel at the same time. A lot of his laughs came from watching his subtle actions (rolling his eyes after a phone call, sneaking a drink during a party, etc.).
Dan Aykroyd won me over as well in his role as rich snob Louis Winthorpe III. I hated his guts at first but ultimately came to sympathize with his character which was the whole idea. He wore the role of proud rich kid well, but excelled when it came time for him to get crazy.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film opens with a multitude of shots that captures the heart of Philadelphia so well. I've only visited the city once and seeing those opening shots made me want to go back. Other very memorable scenes include the party at Valentine's home (absolute bedlam) and the calamity that is the trading room floor. Just seeing all those bodies pressing in on each other is enough to make you claustrophobic.
Favorite Still Shot: Valentine laying on the ground with almost a dozen cops pointing their guns just inches from his face. That one shot has been a feature in so many film montages over the years and deservedly so. That smile Murphy delivers saying, "I give up" is timeless.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 9
Trading Places still holds up all these years later as a classic comedy. It's hilarious but it also gives you pause for thought as well about the class and race roles in society. Sure it can be absolutely farfetched at times, but it's sole purpose is seemingly not just to entertain, but to raise awareness as well. It's been a few days since I've seen the film yet it still sticks out in my head amongst others.
Pace: 8
Plot: 8
As the plot unfolded, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous...Until I started thinking about today's political landscape and considered, "Hmmm, this is exactly the kind of experiment I could see a rich person with a lot of time on their hands concocting." It isn't all the way believable, but I tend to make exceptions for action films and comedies.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 81
I like Trading Places way more than I expected to. Director John Landis does an excellent job of walking the line between funny and thought-provoking, sometimes even daring to mix the two. Very solid film.
Acting: 10
A mixture of familiar faces and a few fresh ones, performances are stellar from top to bottom. It's what you expect when true professionals come together to put on a show. Eddie Murphy's comedic timing is on point as always, playing the role of homeless man Billy Ray Valentine. Just listening to him tell his story in prison about the Quart of Blood Technique had me in stitches. He has a way of being funny in a nonchalant way, reminding me of some of my closest friends.
Denholm Elliott won my heart as the lovable butler Coleman. He's kindhearted, but can be hilariously cruel at the same time. A lot of his laughs came from watching his subtle actions (rolling his eyes after a phone call, sneaking a drink during a party, etc.).
Dan Aykroyd won me over as well in his role as rich snob Louis Winthorpe III. I hated his guts at first but ultimately came to sympathize with his character which was the whole idea. He wore the role of proud rich kid well, but excelled when it came time for him to get crazy.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film opens with a multitude of shots that captures the heart of Philadelphia so well. I've only visited the city once and seeing those opening shots made me want to go back. Other very memorable scenes include the party at Valentine's home (absolute bedlam) and the calamity that is the trading room floor. Just seeing all those bodies pressing in on each other is enough to make you claustrophobic.
Favorite Still Shot: Valentine laying on the ground with almost a dozen cops pointing their guns just inches from his face. That one shot has been a feature in so many film montages over the years and deservedly so. That smile Murphy delivers saying, "I give up" is timeless.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 9
Trading Places still holds up all these years later as a classic comedy. It's hilarious but it also gives you pause for thought as well about the class and race roles in society. Sure it can be absolutely farfetched at times, but it's sole purpose is seemingly not just to entertain, but to raise awareness as well. It's been a few days since I've seen the film yet it still sticks out in my head amongst others.
Pace: 8
Plot: 8
As the plot unfolded, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous...Until I started thinking about today's political landscape and considered, "Hmmm, this is exactly the kind of experiment I could see a rich person with a lot of time on their hands concocting." It isn't all the way believable, but I tend to make exceptions for action films and comedies.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 81
I like Trading Places way more than I expected to. Director John Landis does an excellent job of walking the line between funny and thought-provoking, sometimes even daring to mix the two. Very solid film.