Really enjoyed this - way better than those stupid churned-out Furious chase movies... it actually has a story... and acting!
The movie was absolutely exhilarating during the action sequences, especially the car chases. But, the second the action sequences stop, the movie grinds to a halt with stereotypical writing and characters. What also doesn't help is the self-conscious need to be cool that the film has. Some would call it style, I would call it distracting.
One last job? Seen it before. And the characters in the film are cardboard cutouts. The worst of the bunch is Jamie Foxx's character Bats. Bats is a homicidal maniac who is hired by Spacey's Doc for a two jobs. Doc seems to be a very careful man who plans meticulously. Why Doc would pick an unhinged impulsive person like Bats to do a job is beyond me. The whole thing reminds me of the same flaw in Michael Mann's otherwise excellent heist film Heat where De Niro's McCauley hires a similarly homicidal and impulsive Waingro onto his team.
Did I like the film? Kind of. Yes, for the action sequences that are fantastically shot by Bill Pope and edited by Jonathon Amos and Paul Machliss. No, for pretty much everything else.
Amazing movie overall. I instantly fell in love with it, it's so charming and funny and the way the soundtrack blends perfectly with every single scene dazzled me. Most of the actors have some sort of musical background and it makes it even better. This movie is an ode to music in a way that it was more important to me than the story it was trying to tell. Every actor was crazy good, but kevin spacey and jamie foxx were amazing. Ansel was great in its way, I know him more for his music than his acting so I don't know if he was looking off because of the character or because of his acting. But it created a weird vibe and I appreciated that.
The only reason why this movie is not a 10 for me is the third act. It felt so rushed, one minute baby is trying to save the girl from the post office, the other he's Impaling Bats with a beam. Deborah didn't even questioned why Baby was suddenly killing people and robbing cars, she just went with it and helped him, all for that sweet escape. Did it ruin he experience? nope, but I left thinking it could have been even better.
Few other thoughts:
Opening credits with Baby walking to the street with his eadbuds: AWESOME.
Ansel pulling an Ansolo with his mixtapes: AWESOME.
Dollar bills and bullets sincronized with the song: SO FREAKING AWESOME!
This isn't a bad movie, but I also don't think it's particularly great either. The performances all around were good, save for maybe Kirsten Dunst who seemed to be trying a little too hard to be unlikable as a supervisor. The story was intriguing enough to make it all the way to the end of the movie, but I really feel like this story deserved a lot better, especially regarding the importance of these three women in our history.
The editing felt really off at several points, cutting to other shots far too frequently when it didn't need to. The music used also felt extremely out of place, especially for a period piece like this. Pharrell Williams shouldn't have been involved with this, with special regards to the song Runnin' which not only was overused but also completely unnecessary in trying to force a comedic tone when it didn't need to. They should've used more music from the time period the movie was set in.
I don't feel like I wasted my time watching this, but I wish there was more care put into this. I seriously don't get why it had so much Oscar attention, especially when compared to the nominees it was right next to.
awful plot, wonderful job. congratulations to the people responsible on creating the animation, bad job to those who created the history
Scales new heights when the film takes to the streets but hits potholes whenever it tries for quieter character moments.
This movie is your brain on drugs. Lots of stuff going on, but someone forgot to include coherency... and a plot.
Suffering Sappho!
If there were ever a movie I wanted to be good, (though, realistically, I want almost every movie to be good) it would probably have been this one. Believe me, I was pretty hyped for this film. Actually, my initial reaction to the trailer for this movie was an awesome (in the literal, Biblical sense) headdesk, crashing to the table below, as I bellowed my indignation that I could not have been involved in the making of this movie myself! Is that a little grandiose? Sure, but so am I, so bear with me.
Unfortunately, the reality of this movie turns out to be a little bit of a patchy mess. It is uninspired in its aesthetic (not terribly surprising from the director of infamous Disney reboot "Herbie Fully Loaded," lesbian B movie "D.E.B.S.", and several episodes of "The L Word"), the pacing is erratic and jumbled at times, and the writing flies in the face of historical accuracy and vernacular speech.
Where the movie deserves praise, although sometimes at the expense of its worldbuilding mise en scene, is in the casting and performances of the three principals, Evans, Hall, and Heathcote (in credits order, though not truly in order of importance or merit). Here, each had moments of true brilliance, as the triad stood alone (sometimes too alone, to the detriment of the too-flimsy film world around them) against a sea of angry, very red, very white faces.
I never felt disengaged from the characters, and they were written flawlessly. Where these figures deviate from history (which, I hear, is at many points) I will allow poetic license, because they are painted so vividly and with such charming life. Even when the script is bad, the actors presented it well. Just as even when the script called for the location to be set in New York state, it still looked like Massachusetts.
This movie was truly robbed. With a better cinematographer, two more really good rewrites, and maybe some more specific focus, this movie could have been a serious awards contender, and a very great piece of art. As it is, it's been a blip through the cinemas, to be misunderstood and forgotten until such time as polyamory is more accepted in the social mores of the day, and it can be further misunderstood and miscategorized as evidence of how backward society was in 2017, that this was our take on the Marston/Moulton story.
Of course, by that time, there will be a better "Wonder Women" movie. There had damn well better be.
The premises were good, and the idea is original. The film, however, is full of errors in the plot and random things.
While I walked in the theater I expected a good movie. Because I liked the concept of the story as it was set-up in the trailer. But mostly because I 'trusted' Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman to pick a good movie to play in. While I walked out the theater I had different thoughts unfortunately. The film was disappointing to me and I will try to explain why. It wasn't the acting and 'world building' but I disliked the directing, screenplay and filming.
First of the directing and filming, all of the action scenes where flooded with shaky cam. This was handled very badly in my opinion. I couldn't figure out what was happening most of the time. Due to the shaky cam, number of cuts, close-ups and the peace of all that. That was the main reason why I disliked 'Safe House', which is also made by Daniel Espinosa. It almost felt like he was trying the make the filming and directing 'not perfectly on purpose' to make it 'real' but it didn't worked out at all! It all felt kinda clumsy and there were way to many meaningless shots overall. There were some exceptions, some shots of the cities and area's they visited where beautifully. They really landed the rough and dark tone that they successfully tried the show. Although they over did it sometimes.
Then the screenplay or script, which is based on a 'best selling novel', again! First of you get a nice back story of Tom Hardy's main character, which felt real to me. All of the other characters felt a bit empty, like they were there to fill a place that was written for them. That made it almost impossible for my to understand the characters and the decisions they make. I also missed the whole balance in the story. The first part was way to long ( set-up ), the middle was rush ( plot kicks in ) and the final party ( ending ) was also rushed and kinda unbelievable. I think because of this I wasn't sucked in to the story. The second and third party felt way to easy and straight forward. Like solving a child murder case which is spread over thousand of miles is easy. I think the story could be told in a better and more interesting way.
Overall I was disappointed by Child 44. The dark Russia after WWII was displayed intense but the story lagged suspension and balance. The action scenes sucked even more than the conversations because of the directing and filming methods they just. Tom Hardy did is part good but not brilliant and unfortunately Gary Oldman's characters was barely in it. I give Child 44 an 5 aka 'Meh'! Thanks for reading!
great Actors but but terrible movie. The first part was okay but the end of the movie... no no no
I recommend watching Florence Foster Jenkins: A World of Her Own before you see this movie; it basically is a documentary on Florence and just how delusional she was and how the people around her basically took her money by giving her praise. I did enjoy this movie with Streep (and I am not 60+ years old). This movie was good, it stays true to Florence's character since that was just how she was; she's KNOWN to be the world's worst opera singer and the movie delivers in showing that and showing her iconic moment of selling out Carnegie Hall. It's silly and touching at times. If you're in the mood to learn a little bit and have a few laughs, I recommend this movie. If you want to know more about FFJ before seeing this movie, watch the documentary.
What happens when you give the keys to the Star Trek kingdom to the director of the Fast and the Furious movies? You get a franchise known for its thematic depth and attention to character reduced to a series of whiz-bang action sequences and only the shallow veneer of theme or character development on top of it. Make no mistake, Star Trek Beyond is a film that can barely get the surface-level details right, and stumbles in its abbreviated attempts to go beyond them. And the result is a generally dull action film that could have its serial numbers shaved off and thus be wholly unrecognizable as anything related to Star Trek.
The film is most striking in how it fails where its predecessors succeeded. It's true that there was little of the heady optimism at play in the 2009 Star Trek reboot, but what the movie lacked in thematic heft, it made up for in terms of giving the audience a journey focused on character. The greatest conflicts in the film are not between the Enterprise and the Romulans, but within and between the film's two biggest characters. Kirk starts out as a good-for-little scoundrel and through his experiences in the film, evolves into an officer, albeit one who is still charmingly rough around the edges. Spock starts out as a man unable to reconcile his human side and his Vulcan side, and through his experiences in the film's adventure, he find balance and peace. Most importantly, those two character arcs intersect in meaningful ways and make us invested in those in charge of the enterprise.
By contrast, Beyond suggests a similarly intriguing start for both Kirk and Spock, but peters out between the beginning of their journey and the intended destination. The idea of a somewhat jaded James T. Kirk, having lost some of his passion, wondering if his mission even matters given the enormity of space, and contemplating whether to hang up his spurs, is a superb one that made me think director Justin Lin and writer Simon Pegg (who also plays Scotty) and Doug Jung (who plays Sulu's husband) were following the 2009 film's lead in this regard. Similarly, the notion that Spock, rattled by his alternative timeline counterpart's death, also feels inclined to give up Starfleet to focus on carrying on the elder Spock's goal to rehabilitate the Vulcan people, creates numerous storytelling possibilities and a parallel sense of restlessness to the character that mirrors Kirk's. The state of play as Beyond begins seems poised to tell another compelling, character-focused story of growth and change.
Instead, by the end of the film, Kirk has decided to stay in active duty; Spock stays a part of his crew, and the reasons for their change of heart are fuzzy at best. Whereas the 2009 film spent ample time showing events that marked the changes in Kirk and Spock's mentalities and perspective, Beyond amounts to something along the lines of, "They wanted to leave. They went on an adventure. Now they don't" without nearly enough connective tissue to get at the why of the shift in their plans. It's an Underpants Gnomes approach to character development that falls flat. There are vague concepts of "unity" as an important principle floating the film, but Beyond does little to tie it into concrete incidents that motivate Kirk and Spock to be in a different place at the end of the film than they were at the beginning. Instead, they just go on an adventure and come back different, which makes their supposed evolution narrative unsatisfying and ultimately unearned.
It doesn't help that the whole "unity is good" concept underlying the film is dramatized in about as shallow and trite a manner as one could imagine. It's a fluffy theme to begin with, and Star Trek Beyond doesn't do much to make it any more weighty or meaningful in how its realized in the conflict of the film or the characters' actions, especially in the context of on-the-nose dialogue to that effect. Say what you will about Star Trek Into Darkness, and there's plenty to say, but at least the film had the moxie to explore, as its hallowed predecessors did, some of the major social and political issues of the day. There's room to criticize Into Darkness's approach, and other flaws derivative elements that hobbled the film out of the gate, but tackling concepts of militarization and the security state feels of a piece with the politically-charged spirit of The Original Series and its successors. Its reach exceeded its grasp, but there was a nobility in the attempt.
Beyond, on the other hand, is content to coast on a vague Barney-esque notion of teamwork as a guiding principle and theme that barely feels worthy of a generic space adventure, let alone a franchise like Star Trek. The new ally introduced in the film is a lone wolf, wayward traveler brought into the Starfleet fold, whereas it's villain is motivated by a rejection of unity and the benefits of collective action, in a skin-deep realization of that contrast meant to be the film's focal point. Idris Elba is completely wasted in the latter role, an outstanding actor reduced to snarls and platitudes that do not do him justice. In fact, few cast members are given material worthy of their talents. What little they're given to work with in terms of expressing this theme, undercooked though it may be, is lost in a sea of stock beats and action set pieces that feel almost wholly disconnected and inadequate to convey what the film is shooting for.
Those set pieces, which ought to be the saving grace of bringing in a director like Justin Lin, are also a surprising weakness for the film. While there's no shortage of action, almost all of it is shot and directed in a nigh-incoherent fashion that makes it difficult to follow what's happening from scene to muddled scene. Lin and cinematographer Stephen F. Windon pay little mind to ideas of geography or scope, rendering what ought to be a strength of Beyond, instead a collection of occasionally-cool moments with little to put them in context with one another. The film can boast an enjoyable anti-gravity sequence, and its Beastie Boys-fueled excitement is enjoyable if silly, but for the most part, the visual fireworks of Beyond fizzle out into a hodgepodge of undifferentiated combat and explosions.
The film does have its merits. The dynamic between Spock and Bones is the best realized element of the film and lives up to the humor and endearing qualities that Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley imbued into that relationship. And for however much the film's action falters, its design work is impeccable, from the unique look of newcomer Jaylah to the geometric wizardry of the Yorktown Space Station. But they pale in comparison to the fundamental elements of Star Trek, whether they be from the pre-2009 shows and movies or the Abrams films, where Beyond totally misfires.
At its best, Star Trek features the focus on character that drove the original series, bolstered the 2009 reboot, and is realized in only a meager, perfunctory fashion in Beyond. The franchise can soar in its examination of meaningful social and political issues in a fantastical setting, in keeping with its science fiction roots, a virtue Beyond sacrifices in favor of a generic message about working together. This film skips the heavy lifting of showing us how the characters at the core of the franchise develop and grow, and the burden of telling a story that can be both heady and thrilling, in favor of an easy, unambitious action film that has a handful of good moments, but only the patina of what made Star Trek special. Star Trek Beyond is like any other middling cinematic sci-fi adventure of the past decade, with only a Trek-inspired coat of paint to distinguish it, and that's the film's greatest sin.
Edit: On rewatch nearly five years later I...still agree almost completely with my previous review. I probably wouldn't rate it as poorly, but even knowing where everything is heading, this film is a narrative mess that substitutes bland platitudes and indiscriminate action for having an actual story or character or point with any genuine depth. With Simon Pegg as a credited screenwriter, there's more charming references to The Original Series (e.g. Kirk ripping his shirt, Chekov claiming that scotch is Russian) and even some homages to Star Trek: Enterprise (a mention of the Xindi!). But those cute callbacks don't make up for this flashy, indiscriminate clump of a movie.
The one thing I would revise is that there's at least a decent arc for Spock here. he thinks that living up to Spock Prime's legacy means leaving Starfleet to help Vulcans, only to see how much his friends and colleagues need him and realize that Spock Prime's legacy was helping and standing by his friends. It's bare bones, but it's there, and the movie deserves credit for it.
Still, a rewatch does this no favors. If anything, it just confirms the film's Underpants Gnomes approach to storytelling, the jumbled pacing and lumpy structure, and the unavailing action sequences that make it something less than the fun success of ST'09 and less even than the noble failure of Into Darkness. I'd probably upgrade it to a [5.5/10], but it's still a real low-light among the reboot films.
All the moral complexity and historical sensitivity of a Disney sequel.
At least Judi Dench is brilliant. As usual.
[7.3/10] One of the things I like about kids movies these days is that they tend to be pretty clear about what the characters want and how that drives the story. I’m sure there’s some selection bias there, with plenty of kid-focused dreck that doesn't make it onto my radar. But one of the benefits of aiming at the kid audience is that films almost have to be clearer about motivation and its connection to story or you risk losing attention and understanding. Sometimes, that leads to overly telegraphed plot points or predictable story arcs, but in others, it adds a sense of clarity and character to children’s entertainment that wide swaths of adult-focused films lack.
Ralph Breaks the Internet is the (nigh-literal) poster child for that idea. In a series of enjoyable opening clips, the film establishes that candy-coated racer Vanellope is tired of the predictability of life in the arcade, and is thirsting for the new, different, and unknown. Ralph, on the other hand, things the steady life of work, root beer, and especially hanging out with his best friend is paradise, is everything he could ever want. So when Vanellope yearns for something more, he’s helpful and supportive, but doesn't really get it and wonders why his friendship isn’t enough to sate her.
Naturally, things go haywire from there. Some track-based improvisation leads to a broken gaming wheel in the real world, sending Ralph and Vanellope into the internet in an effort to find a replacement. They meet new characters and face new challenges and explore the ever-expanding, bustling realm of the world wide web. But every choice the movie, and more importantly the characters, make is driven by their friendship, and those two conflicting impulses and concerns that Ralph Breaks the Internet sets up in its first ten minutes.
What’s interesting is that despite being set there, and theoretically expanding the reach of this franchise, the film isn’t really about the internet. Sure, there’s plenty of glancing observations about silly things going viral or the toxicity of comment sections. But for the most part, the web is just an energetic backdrop for a story about two friends who care deeply about one another but need different things in order to feel fulfilled. The tale Ralph Breaks the Internet tells fits that within its cyberspace setting, but the Internet is merely the object of Vanellope’s impulse to experience a wider, woolier world, and Ralph’s reluctance in the shadow of its dizzying diversity, rather than the true subject of the film.
That’s not to say that Ralph Breaks the Internet fails to make the most of that setting. While fans of Tron or even the inevitably revived ReBoot are familiar with the inner workings of cyberspace being depicted as some sort of bustling city, this movie kicks that idea up a notch. The web as a sprawling metropolis, with website skyscrapers and user milling around as little avatars, is a fun, high energy backdrop for all the misadventures of our heroes. Spammers and pop-ups are treated like carnival barkers, sites themselves are fun houses or factories, and viruses and the “dark web” are the seedy underbelly of the bustling burg. The tropes are familiar, but the execution is a visual feast, creatively done.
Thankfully, the gratuitous corporate synergy comes in small, concentrated doses rather than overwhelming the story and setup this film is trying to impart. There’s cameos from Marvel and Star Wars characters and conspicuous House of Mouse-style mash-ups of different worlds and properties. And yes, as the trailer promised, there is an all-star team-up of Disney princesses, who chat with Vanellope and lend a bit of aid when the moment calls for it, with a new ode from Alan Menken to boot. There’s meta gags galore and a few winks at the standard princess tropes, but it’s all punchy and funny enough that it’s always pleasing and rarely veers to the level of indulgence.
The problems with the movie instead lie in how it rushes and sitcom-ifies the conflict between Vanellope and Ralph. There’s legitimate tension to be had in how Vanellope is drawn to Shank, the leader of a hardscrabble racing squad in a Grand Theft Auto-meets-Twisted Metal game called “Slaughter Race” that’s captured Vanellope’s imagination, and how insecure Ralph feels over that. But Ralph Breaks the Internet dramatizes that with a cliché “one character speaks frankly without knowing that another character is listening in” setup, and underlines in with a device that literally reproduces Ralph’s “insecurity” in destructive fashion.
At the same time, the movie bends over backwards to prevent either party from seeing the bad guy. That’s not a bad tack in principle. Both Ralph and Vanellope are genuinely well-meaning but are capable of hurting each other due to their divergent wants from life. But the movie needs conflict and action, and so retreats from having Ralph doing anything genuinely bad or ill-intentioned, instead incessantly underscoring the fact that he doesn't mean any harm when his actions come close to doing real harm to his best friend. That takes the juice out of the confrontation between confidantes the film wants to draw out, and weakens the overall conflict.
The inevitable third act action sequence exists in an odd space between inventive and rote. The final challenge involves an Oogie-Boogie esque threat who’s creatively animated in every frame, but who’s too blunt as a personification of Ralph’s worries and whose defeat drifts into hand-holding as to the message of the film and a solid snootful of fan service to boot. The film thrives and delights when it features Ralph and Vanellope capering through cyberspace, but falter when it has to bring the burgeoning friction between them to a head.
Still, the film’s message is a laudable one, which settles on accepting that the people you care about can want other things in life to make them feel fulfilled, without diminishing the closeness of your friendship. At times, its efforts to convey that message verge on the contrived or the overblown. But at its core, Ralph Breaks the Internet commits to the idea of what its two main characters want, and amid the wonder and pitfalls of the world wide web, plays that idea out in a way that vindicates who they are and what drives them. The film boasts fun online observations and vaguely self-satisfied but self-effacing Disney jibes, while ultimately coming down on the side of a character-focused story.
It can’t top Ralph and Vanellope’s first outing, and stumbles a bit as those character clashes are forced to turn into the mandatory uptempo thrillride all tentpole movies have to have these days, but Ralph Breaks the Internet whose who they are and what they want, comedicaly and dramatically, which keeps the movie enjoyable and on track, even amid the online flurry the film steeps itself in.
First off, from a technical perspective, this is a masterpiece. Everything that is shot in a ship looks phenomenal. The moon landing itself is breathtaking. See this in IMAX if possible. That being said, everything outside a ship is just ok. The acting is good overall but I’m not sure if it Oscar worthy. Claire Foy really gives the best performance. It feels a little too long. They used shaky cam a little too much. It makes sense on the ship scenes but it felt overused on the ground drama. It might be my least favorite Chazelle movie but this is still a great movie.
World Premiere Review: 11/14/16
Frozen: Tropical Edition. But, that's not a bad thing. It's a really good movie with amazing animation, charming story and excellent songs (if you're into that). It's by no means flawless. Repetitiveness is the main issue, especially with certain physical humor which is done to death, particularly the wonky eyed chicken. I won't spoil what it does, but I found myself going "AGAIN?! COMON." Adults will find it charming and kids will think it's hilarious.
As good as the first film? No, not really, but then sequels rarely are. It was big and bold, but the story was a little weak. However, the movie is still very entertaining in parts, and while I perhaps wanted a little more plausibility, it may be that I had unrealistic expectations for a film of this sort. Great action, a delicious turn from Julianne Moore, a rocking soundtrack, and a mincing turn from Keith Allen (what, you expected me to say Elton?), made this a film I will go back to. So not as fresh or as funny as the original, but it could have been a lot worse. And remember, before you have a go at me for giving it a lower rating than others, manners maketh the man!
Awful effects. Good jokes, bad jokes. No one can save it from drowning in our list of forgettable remakes/reboots.
6.6/10. You’ve seen Hidden Figures before. Maybe you haven’t seen this exact movie -- about how three unduly unheralded African American women helped NASA in the early 1960s -- but if, like me, you dutifully watch many, if not most, of the Oscar-nominated films each year, then within ten minutes, you’ll already know this movie by heart.
It features a gutsy but unorthodox protagonist trying to make a dent in a system that marginalizes and ignores her. It’s a period piece, with enough obvious dialogue, signs, and cameos from well-known historical figures to let you know exactly when the story is taking place with plenty of opportunity for the viewer to say, “My, how far we’ve come.” It has supporting characters facing challenges that mirror the protagonist’s, shining more light on the ways in which the order of the day affected those who were quietly fighting to maintain their place in it, and maybe even change it. And it has the untold story/historical injustice angle that’s supposed to imbue it with an extra bit of triumph and tragedy, all unleashed with a heavy dose of Hollywood mythmaking.
The difference, and the thing that distinguishes Hidden Figures from the likes of The Imitation Game, Dallas Buyers Club, and other recent Oscar nominees that play in the same space is that it uses the power of that formula in support of a woman of color. At a time when the world of film is still lingering in the shadow of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, it’s encouraging that Taraji P. Henson can be cast as the star of a movie that follows the Academy Award film blueprint and succeed at the box office in the process. It’s just a shame that the film’s artistic merit doesn’t match its social merit.
Don’t get me wrong; Hidden Figures is a well-made film. It chugs along at a good clip -- telling the story of one brilliant mathematician’s contributions to NASA at a time when someone of her race and gender had to work twice as hard to make it half as far -- in a tight, if predictable manner. It sprinkles in the subplots about her compatriots nicely, allowing them to work well as breaks from the main narrative that still feed into it. The acting on display is solid-to-good all around. It’s impeccably shot, framed, and edited, with colors that leap off the screen and composition that emphasizes the loneliness, bustle, or intimacy of a given setting. And it can boast a jam-worthy soundtrack that fits the movie’s big moments, but which would be worth listening to apart even outside the theater.
But good lord is it full of every hoary trope from every awards season film you’ve ever seen. The film runs through a litany of standard, predictable beats, telegraphing each one along the way. The good guys overcome the heavily-underlined obstacles in their way. They stand up to thinly-drawn, ineffectual antagonists. They offering cutting, cheesy one-liners after finding their footing.
The film provides an opportunity for Henson to give a Big Damn Speech, and for Kevin Costner to give a Big Damn Speech, and for Janelle Monáe to give a Big Damn Speech (which is, surprisingly, the best written and performed of the three). There is a one-dimensional love interest (Mahershala Ali, whose talents are squandered here) whose only true defining characteristic is that he likes the protagonist. And in the end, there are the expected measured but clear victories, culminating in a big historical event and a “where are they now” text-on-screen closing.
Even the canny little moments of repetition and subversion -- the protagonist being handed a piece of chalk, symbolizing opportunity, by her supervisor the same way she as a child in the classroom; or one of her white colleagues having to hustle across the NASA campus to find her rather than the other way around -- feel like a page torn out of the usual awards-bait playbook. The only times when the film transcends this are when it puts its three leads -- Henson, Monáe, and Octavia Spencer (who manages to make a lot out of a little here) -- together. It’s in these moments that they seem like real human beings finding solace in one another and navigating an environment where the deck is stacked against them, rather than mascots for another rote bout of silver screen “triumph over adversity” heartstring-pulling.
Hidden Figures does the good work of telling the world about the trailblazing achievements of Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson, but it does a disservice to these women’s stories to reduce them to the usual prestige pablum, and it doesn’t have to be this way.
It’s laudable that Hollywood is using its hagiographic abilities on women of color who deserve to be widely known, but even the Awards season fare of the recent past shows that it can do better. The superlative Selma looked like a bog-standard Great Man biopic, and instead treated its historical giant of a central figure with a humanizing gaze that made Martin Luther King Jr., his movement, and his struggle feel more real than all the usual tinseltown gloss and lionizing tone could. The Best Picture-winning Twelve Years a Slave suffers from a small bit of the same white savior syndrome that afflicted the execrable The Help, but it was raw and uncompromising, putting the ugliness of the prejudices faced by its protagonist on display in a way that didn’t reduce them to petty hurdles our heroes would inevitably hop over. These vital stories can be told without sacrificing artistry or giving into the cliches of typical Oscar fare.
But maybe that’s the best thing to say about Hidden Figures. Every awards season is going to feature a certain quotient of this type of film. Every year sees a new crop of competently-made, not particularly inspired movies that deal with Important Things, typically from The Long Long Ago. If this is inevitable, if the awards circuit is continually going to honor films that hit these same notes over and over again, then the least we can do is use this generic form in service of people whose stories deserve to be told, and who are all too often, as the movie’s title portends, left on the cutting room floor.
I'm not a huge Winnie the Pooh fan so I have no nostalgia for it. This movie doesn't quite know what it is. It is a little too dark at times to be a kids movie and too boring to fully be an adult movie. The animals look weird at first but you get use to them. Eeyore was by far the best and had all the funny lines. Ewan McGregor was charming. Overall the movie is okay, if you are a fan then you will like it more but if you aren't then you can probably skip it.
Probably the most heavy handed and clumsy exposition I have ever seen in any film, but still really good despite it.
Premium Rush got off to a great start but I slowly grew to dislike it over the 90 minute run time. The immensely talented Joseph Gordon Levitt can't even make his character tolerable. He is nothing more than a typical douchebag with a bike. His character manages to make the plot less believable as it progresses. There isn't anything particularly wrong with any of the performances. Michael Shannon is great as an over the top cartoon villain but the over the top foolishness of the characters ruins what would've been a good film otherwise.
I didn't think I would like this. I was wrong. It is quite a fun, happy, wholesome, uplifting story.
How I rate:
1-3 :heart: = seriously! don't waste your time
4-6 :heart: = you may or may not enjoy this
7-8 :heart: = I expect you will like this too
9-10 :heart: = movies and TV shows I really love!
I don’t understand why waste a short life at home or school if there is only ~20 years of life. There is a lot to see and experience in the world, so mom and dad should offer the child much more than just home and school. This is a poorly written film and not enough thought about children and their behavior when doing it. Mr. Williams played his role nicely.
Samara Weaving! Yes! Honestly didn't expect anything good from this but this was some funny stuff. Just, stop barrel rolling the camera.
Based on a novel of the same name, the premise of The Princess Diaries is certainly intriguing enough. A coming-of-age Cinderella story with a twist -- Cinderella is not the damsel in distress. She's comfortable in her own awkward shy teenager shell.
The film has all the ingredients of a successful film. And the film was wildly successful. It has a dream team of cast where everyone is as perfectly cast as they can be, starting with Julie Andrews as the queen and Anne Hathaway in her breakthrough debut as Mia. Directed by the veteran of Cinderella films Garry Marshall (Pretty Woman), the film was a low risk bet for Walt Disney.
For the intended audience (young and preteen girls), the film hits all the right notes. Mia's transformation scene is easily the highlight of the film, and it is very effective and well shot.
Yet, the film just didn't work for me. The movie is just all too familiar and predictable. The scene where Mia discovers her heritage carries surprisingly very little revelation and reactions. And the climax just didn't arouse warm reaction it intended to generate. Worse of all, there are just too many cliched and cringe inducing scenes.
All in all, the film is worth casual family viewing. But for me, the strong cast and competent direction couldn't overcome weak screenplay.
What could have been a great movie with a fantastic storyline, has instead turned into a lame comical show.
Everything about this is very meh.
I can't say there is anything about 'Jungle 2 Jungle' that I liked or enjoyed, I don't think it is anything overtly terrible but it's just so boring. None of the cast are memorable, the plot is lazy and the pacing is well off. It does attempt heart, though it doesn't hit all that sharply.
The performances of Tim Allen (Michael) and Martin Short (Richard) - though not good - at least keep the film away from the depths of awful. I also think Sam Huntington (Mimi) is alright in this. There's also an appearance from Jumba Jookiba himself, David Ogden Stiers.
All in all, It's just a very basic and plain live-action production from Disney. The stereotypical 'jokes' don't help its cause, either.
Too many plot holes and unanswered questions, G.
