Change Your Image
cooperm-26264
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021)
A bigger budget does not make a better movie
I personally find this a very difficult movie to summarise. It's really not good, but there are some entertaining aspects and ideas here despite what many reviews are saying. Yes, it is true it's basically a 2 hour ad for WB, but their visiting the various franchises to find the Looney Tunes was a nice idea - the problem I had was that this part was far too rushed and just not funny. The execution is a mess. There's just too much going on. It flits from franchise to franchise and it's just tiresome. You can tell the people in charge of the visuals and animation tried hard, but it feels exhausting to watch.
There were surprisingly few moments involving the Looney Tunes that I cringed at, but at the same time they weren't particularly memorable either. In fact, they kind of felt like an afterthought as they're not directly involved in the main plot. Whereas in the first movie they need Michael Jordan to help them, here they just happen to be LeBron's team for no real reason. Speaking of LeBron, he's about as charismatic as a brick. No, Michael Jordan wasn't outstanding, but he at least had some screen presence. LeBron's acting is dreadful, and that includes his voice acting. He's just a complete and utter bore to watch, and just not entertaining enough to carry the movie. There were some amusing moments here and there, but this movie takes itself too seriously. The first movie is a lot simpler but I prefer it that way - it pokes fun at itself and the actors looked to have a good time. This movie was visually chaotic, and it all seemed so lifeless and fake. It had a needlessly convoluted plot that made no sense, and it was far too long. At almost 2 hours in length, I wish they'd have spent more time on introducing the Looney Tunes characters than the tedious basketball game itself. It's basically a big, soulless cash-grab with some funny moments.
There was more 2D animation than I was expecting, and this was nice to see, but the movie overall was lacklustre. It very obviously had a much larger budget than the original, but that definitely doesn't make it a better movie. If you see this movie at all, see it for the visuals and animation. Otherwise, it's pretty terrible.
Oh, and I'm also confused as to why they didn't have Bob Bergen voice Porky Pig in this movie. The guy who replaced him is okay, but Bergen's Porky is by far the best. It's just odd to me since Bergen is in the movie voicing Tweety when Porky is his speciality.
The Simpsons: 'Tis the Fifteenth Season (2003)
And a jolly good season it is at that!
Since the Millennium, The Simpsons has been repeatedly criticised for its decline in quality. Every once in a while, however, there comes an episode that hearkens back to the good old days of solid characterisation and story, and this is one of those. It's hard to pinpoint precisely why it's good – the episode, while amusing, isn't overly hilarious, but it is decidedly more Christmassy than earlier Holiday-themed efforts, including 'Miracle on Evergreen Terrace' from season nine and especially 'She of Little Faith' from season thirteen. In fact, it's possibly one of the best Christmas episodes they've ever made, not to mention one of The Simpsons' most underrated, especially from what is considered a 'later' season.
The episode, as with many of the early post-Millennium episodes, focuses on Homer, who purchases an expensive talking astrolabe for himself. In doing so, he sacrifices buying a decent Christmas tree and gives his friends and family minimal gifts. After he has a Christmas Carol-themed epiphany to reform his selfish ways, he resolves to be the nicest man in Springfield, which expectedly invites the jealousy of renowned do-gooder neighbour Ned Flanders.
In my opinion, one major aspect that works strongly in the episode's favour is its pacing. Since season nine, Simpsons episodes have suffered from issues with pacing, with many episodes taking a completely different direction after every ad-break. But this episode remains fairly consistent. There's one story, and it remains focused throughout. Another favourable aspect of the episode is that the main ensemble remain completely in character. Even despite the fact that it revolves around Homer's selfishness, his 'jerkass' nature reminiscent of Mike Scully's tenure is thankfully underplayed, and it facilitates what is a fairly 'new' storyline that hasn't been touched on before, despite being in their fifteenth season. I understand many are critical of Al Jean's long-running tenure as showrunner, but this season especially showcases a major improvement over the Scully years; a welcome return to form.
Another aspect of the episode that works well is its comedy. A problem I find with many later episodes is that occasionally there'll be an obscure joke that simply isn't funny, or there'll be a gag that is conceptually funny, but doesn't really pay off. Fortunately, the majority of gags in this episode don't fall flat. It might not be as humorous as the episodes from the golden era (1989-1999) but it remains consistently amusing nonetheless. Though I must say the flare gag towards the end with Hans Moleman is hilarious.
Ultimately, this is one of the better 'later' episodes of The Simpsons. Sometimes its underlying moral tones feel somewhat forced and preachy, and Homer acts as your standard Scrooge, but overall it's wholly satisfying, and manages to capture the Christmas spirit like no episode has done since season seven's 'Marge Be Not Proud'. Ignore anyone who says The Simpsons' good episodes stop dead at season ten – this is a true Christmas classic.
Pride (2014)
Pride will make you proud
Writing a light-hearted comedy-drama based around the homophobic politics of the 1980s and the UK miners' strike might sound like a concept doomed to failure. But Pride miraculously pulls it off, and in spectacular fashion at that. Directed by Matthew Warchus and written by Stephen Beresford, the film derives from the factual story of a group of lesbians and gay men in the 1980s, who raised funds for Welsh miners in an attempt to achieve solidarity. Surprisingly, despite the air of negativity that was prevalent during the decade in which it is set, Pride manages to maintain an upbeat and inspiring tone, without conveying itself to be preachy, which is something of an accomplishment.
The feature centres on 20-year-old closet homosexual Joe (George MacKay). During his first visit to a gay pride march in 1984, he becomes inaugurated into a group of gay and lesbian activists led by Mark Ashton (Ben Schnetzer), who decide to support Welsh miners in an attempt to persuade them that they are on the same side, thereby forming 'LGSM': Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners. Before long, the group members find themselves in a traditional Welsh village to convince the local community that they demand similar from the government. However, events take an awry turn as one bigoted member of the community is hell bent on sabotaging their efforts.
The majority of the comedy derives from the interactions between the gay characters and the villagers. Menna Trussler is particularly memorable as Gwen, an elderly lady whose interactions with the lesbian characters are not only hilarious but also strangely endearing. Needless to say, of course, Imelda Staunton and Bill Nighy shine in their roles, but it is the younger, main lesbian and gay ensemble that shines the brightest. MacKay and Schnetzer are perfect in their leading roles, and the acting, on the whole, is near-flawless. Pride is particularly commendable for its even-handed delivery of what is essentially a comedy on one hand, and a profoundly emotional drama on the other. It surprisingly refrains from enforcing a preachy one-sided anti-Thatcher commentary, essentially avoiding the subject of politics altogether. Instead, Beresford focuses predominantly on the personal and interpersonal exploits of the mostly fictionalised ensemble and, for the most part, succeeds. Gethin's (Andrew Scott) storyline, which involves his reuniting with his mother, is especially noteworthy in this respect, though it could be argued that it relies too heavily on a common 'gay-themed' plot to induce an emotional response. Likewise, Joe's clichéd 'coming out' storyline feels somewhat old and tired, but Beresford's varied and compelling use of characters, combined with Warchus' fast-paced direction, enables the film to maintain a semblance of freshness. It's nothing unique, but it's well-written, thoroughly engaging and ultimately uplifting.
However, for a film that relies heavily on its characters and their circumstances to convey a touching and uplifting story, the emotional aspects of the film are at times surprisingly underplayed. The character of Joe, for example, though presented initially as the protagonist, is disappointingly obscured and overshadowed by the LGSM ensemble throughout the majority of the film, despite his particular storyline bearing the most potential in terms of poignancy. Consequently, this poignancy is never truly realised and his overall underuse makes the film's angle appear uncertain from the outset.
Despite this, the film nonetheless maintains a feel-good tone that's full of heart, and makes a profound statement as a firm indication of the progression we've witnessed in the acceptance of LGBT people and their rights since the source basis of this feature. Sadly, the film's few shortcomings preclude it from being regarded as a masterpiece. That said, in spite of its flaws, Warchus' home-grown feel-good feature is undoubtedly a film to be proud of.
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
An affront to cinema, literature, and anyone with half a brain cell
"I don't make love. I f***. Hard", says Christian Grey, in one of the most subtle, evocative scenes of the long-awaited feature presentation of E L James' bestseller, notorious for its graphic sex scenes and, above all, for being an absolute affront to literature at best. Naturally, one expects very little from a film based on degenerate trash, but director Sam Taylor-Johnson's interpretation manages to achieve the seemingly impossible, and deliver a film that quite frankly transcends the inarticulate and laughable prose of its source, resulting in one of the biggest insults to cinema in history. True, we expected it to be bad, but boy, is it bad
Fifty Shades of Grey follows the story of literature student Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and her encounter with the enigmatic billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), who is later revealed to be a sadist. Grey is presented as something of a tormented soul; a mystery. But really, the biggest mystery of all is how on earth a film with such hot sex appeal could be so bloody boring!
So, what are the film's flaws? How long have you got? For starters, the moral of the story is dubious at best. Initially, it appears to glorify sadism and even domestic violence, and yet by its conclusion it seems to indicate that violence for sexual gratification is wrong – despite the fact that this forms the entire basis for the film's appeal, making its message somewhat hypocritical. But that's only really a problem if you analyse the film in any great detail; the truth is, this film isn't even worthy of this review. It's terrible; an unequivocal shambles. So why is it garnering so much attention?
One word: Sex. The media is obsessed with it, so much so that hordes of desperate, horny, middle-aged women flocked to the cinemas by the thousands to see it. This film's appeal is entirely sexual. The plot is bland, the acting is wooden, but the sex – that's what people want to see. Sadly, nothing much happens, and the sex scenes (of which there is surprisingly very few) are about as tedious as the rest of the film, which plays out like an amateur porno. A bad amateur porno. Imagine two hours of a porn film without the porn, just the cheesy build-up. That's essentially what this film is. They say anticipation is half the thrill – it's all the thrill in this film's case.
On a positive note, the cinematography is decent. But that's about it. All the same, nothing can save this film from the quagmire of tedium in which it is firmly sunk. The characters have no chemistry, and Dornan's thinly veiled Irish tongue leaks throughout. It's neither romantic nor sexy. Whoever commissioned this film should be bound and gagged. And not in a good way.
The Theory of Everything (2014)
My theory? This film doesn't have everything
The life of Stephen Hawking has always had the potential to lend itself to a theatrical feature. His work in the field of science and his tragic diagnosis with Motor Neuron Disease are two highly interesting aspects of his life that would translate effectively to the big screen. Finally, director James Marsh has decided to adapt Jane Wilde's memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, for his new film The Theory of Everything, a film whose release has garnered a huge amount of praise from critics and audiences alike. But contrary to the title, it doesn't really have everything.
The film is a biographical drama focused on the relationship between Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane Wilde, a literature student he fell in love with at Cambridge Univiersity. It follows the pair from the 1960s onwards, following his diagnosis with Motor Neuron Disease, and the difficulties they encounter. Within the first half an hour, the film most definitely impresses. The writing seems to be on point, and the acting near-flawless. It genuinely seems as though it will be a gripping biopic. Hawking's diagnosis, the pivotal moment of the film, is presented as a horrific turning point; it doesn't shy away from presenting MND in a brutally raw fashion, relying heavily on excellent acting and cinematography to bluntly convey a harsh reality. It is a truly cathartic scene, painful to watch for all the right reasons. But then the film devolves into something of a feeble thing, diverting focus to Hawking's love life and how his immobility poses something of a difficulty. It's not bad as such, but it ultimately boils down to a depressing, unspectacular and rather ordinary romantic drama.
Even so, the praise the film has received is at least partially deserved; for one thing, the acting is superb. If anybody is worthy of all the praise the film has received, it's Eddie Redmayne, who assumes the role of Hawking and captures his body language and subtle nuances perfectly. He is utterly convincing in the role, while Felicity Jones who plays Jane is also highly commendable. Put simply, the cast is perfect. All the same, however, I can't help but feel disappointed with the film. The acting is tremendous, yes, but the story itself feels a little drawn-out. There are moments in the film that seem quite slow and uninteresting, and its predominant focus on the romantic aspects of Hawking's life frankly become monotonous after a short while. Of course, being based on Jane Wilde's book about her life with Hawking, you'd naturally expect the film to maintain a romantic focus – it is a love story after all. The trouble is, this love story just isn't very interesting.
Those expecting to see a gripping documentation of Hawking's life will more than likely be left disappointed. By about halfway through the movie, it becomes all about Jane, with little focus at all on Hawking's work in the field of science, which would probably have made for a more interesting film. Instead, the film's plot trudges along rather sluggishly, unfolding like a soap opera, belittling Hawking's efforts in favour of a clichéd and bland romantic drama. The fact that it is based on a true story merely makes the film out to be even more insulting, as Hawking's debilitating disease is conveyed as little more than an obstacle for the couple to overcome.
On a more positive note, the character development of Hawking and Wilde is very good, and their relationship seems to build and develop at a natural pace. That said, nurse Elaine felt a little underdeveloped, making Hawking's decision to take her with him to America seem rather sudden. Of course, this lack of development makes sense, as the book itself is presented from Jane's perspective, but it doesn't make for an overwhelmingly satisfying filmic experience. In fact, it feels as though the film peters out by its conclusion. It maintains a positive, pseudo-inspirational tone, but one which is hardly uplifting enough for you to leave the cinema feeling as though you've seen something 'great'. Contrary to all the praise and accolades, it's not a masterpiece. It's just an ordinary film.
Ultimately, it's difficult to summarise my thoughts on this movie. The praise the film has received is understandable, as the acting and cinematography is nothing less than amazing. Redmayne's Hawking is entirely convincing, and the harsh reality of his MND diagnosis is simultaneously conveyed in a beautiful and painful manner. But the film doesn't seem to know where its priorities lie; Marsh seems to disregard Hawking's disease in favour of a bland and forgettable romance. It might be a faithful adaptation of Wilde's memoir, but if you're looking for a gripping biopic on the life of Stephen Hawking, this isn't it.
Paddington (2014)
Bear-ly passable, plot-wise, but nothing too grizzly
The classic children's books by Michael Bond about the adventures of 'Paddington', an English-speaking bear from Darkest Peru with a penchant for marmalade, have delighted young and old alike for more than fifty years. Now, director Paul King presents us with a theatrical adaptation – one which has garnered high praise from both critics and audiences.
Paddington follows the adventures of the little bear and his guardians, Aunt Lucy and Uncle Pastuzo. After his home in Peru is destroyed in a horrific accident, to which Pastuzo sadly falls victim, he heads to London in an attempt to locate the explorer who visited his home many years earlier. In the meantime, a family of four take him under their wing, much to the chagrin of the man of the household, Mr Brown, played expertly by Hugh Bonneville. Naming him 'Paddington', the little bear finds himself settling in, and draws ever closer to finding the explorer, discovering that the hat he wears, passed onto him by his deceased uncle, in fact belonged to the explorer. However an evil taxidermist (Nicole Kidman) is hell-bent on exacting revenge on the unsuspecting bear, and proves something of an obstacle for him and the Brown family.
From a technical standpoint, the film is amazing. The live action blends seamlessly with the animation, which is both flawless and beautiful. The detail is extraordinary, and Bonneville's interactions with the little bear in particular are conveyed as no less than natural. In all, it really is a visual treat. The performances are tremendous too, with Bonneville leading the live action cast, and Sally Hawkins, Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin following in their roles, constituting the family and main ensemble; they convey themselves as a very convincing family unit. Peter Capaldi as Mr Curry the neighbour was also a nice surprise, although I have to admit Nicole Kidman as the evil Millicent left me feeling a little cold. One can't help but feel that she was somewhat upstaged by the rest of the cast – and when a talking animated bear outshines you, let's face it, you're in trouble.
The highlight of the picture was most definitely Julie Walters, who steals the show as the elderly but sagacious Mrs Bird. Her scenes are hilarious – a feat which owes itself both to good acting and writing. Likewise, the voiceovers were highly commendable, with Ben Whishaw assuming the role of Paddington, and Michael Gambon and Imelda Staunton occupying the roles of his aunt and uncle. Sadly, however, the plot of the film leaves more than a little to be desired. What opens as a gripping family drama seems to fizzle out about a third of the way into the film, as the plot seems to divert its focus from Paddington's locating the explorer to his adjusting to a domesticated London life. Of course, this aspect of the film needed to be touched on at least, but the film temporarily loses its focus at the expense of crucial character development and even pacing. Much of the jokes in these scenes also fail to impress, mostly as they seem quite predictable and clichéd. Paddington's difficulty using the bathroom, while funny, feels a little laboured and unoriginal. The scene which sees Mr Brown dress in drag to foil a security guard is also particularly excruciating, and is conveyed as being very old hat, so to speak.
A further issue to be had with the film is that it's far too surreal to maintain an emotional impact throughout. The fact that the bears all speak perfect English is made believable in the context of the film, but when Paddington arrives in London, nobody is fazed by the arrival of the little bear whatsoever. It all comes across as rather bizarre. Some of the humour is also surprisingly off-colour, to the point where it leaves you questioning precisely who this film is aimed at.
Yet, once you manage to put these issues aside, the film is in fact supremely enjoyable. The acting is, for the most part, very good – the main family have chemistry, and that chemistry binds much of the film together. The writing is also mostly top-notch, despite the aforementioned oddities, and one or two incongruent crude and fairly adult gags. Overall, however, Paddington proves to be an enjoyable family feast for the eyes. It's hardly a masterpiece, but it's not what you would call un-bear-ably grizzly. Excuse the pun.
The Falling (2014)
Falling Flat
I had the (dis)pleasure of seeing Carol Morley's The Falling during an evening with my housemates. Having read a brief summary of the plot of the film, as well as having viewed an online trailer several months in advance, I was intrigued, if somewhat confused. Neither the synopsis nor the trailer gave much away concerning the storyline. Now, having seen the film in its entirety, I can safely say I'm none the wiser. If anything, I'm much more confused.
The film focuses on schoolgirl Lydia's (Maisie Williams) almost obsessive, lesbianist relationship with Abbie (Florence Pugh), a fellow student, who falls ill after having slept with Lydia's brother. Following her death, Lydia begins to show similar symptoms and collapses numerous times before the teaching staff. Before long, all the other girls follow suit, resulting in an epidemic that the tutors swiftly attempt to sweep under the rug. Meanwhile, Lydia's agoraphobic mother (Maxine Peake) remains disturbingly unresponsive to her daughter's behaviour until the film's final moments.
Throughout, the film raises several questions, like 'what's causing this epidemic?', 'why is Lydia so deranged?' and 'why is Lydia's mother afraid to leave the house?' But the biggest question on my mind whilst watching the film was 'what's the point in this tripe?' As you can probably tell, this is one of those pretentious, moralistic and metaphorical films that is supposed to maintain some kind of underlying meaning or social commentary. The problem is that it's never made clear what this commentary actually is. Is Morley saying that early sexual activity is wrong? Or is she providing a commentary on the restrictive educational system of the late 1960s? Or both? Or neither? God only knows. What's more, a number of questions remain unanswered. For example, one of the girls, Titch, remains immune to the so-called epidemic, but it's never explained why. In addition, Lydia's bizarre romantic and sexual relationship with her brother (yes, this actually happens – as if Morley couldn't have made the film any weirder) doesn't seem to serve much purpose. I'm half-expecting someone to respond to this by arguing some deeply profound metaphorical jargon to the contrary. Don't bother. It's controversial for the sake of being controversial; pure garbage.
As some other reviewers here have already noted, the acting and cinematography are mostly of a high standard; Maxine Peake is no less than outstanding in her role, making her the film's only truly convincing character. The other characters are burdened with weak, horrific and sometimes laughable dialogue and cheesy faux-horror movie acting. Scenes in which the group of girl-friends are seen linking arms, chanting Abbie's name and dancing in a circle, are particularly excruciating, not to mention somewhat comedic, as are the fainting scenes, of which there are too many to have any impact; it just comes across as ridiculous. Why Lydia constantly feels the need to perform some interpretative dance piece before collapsing is anybody's guess. Despite this, the young cast's acting abilities are far from abysmal, but with no logical narrative or decipherable plot, this is hardly enough to save the film from falling flat on its face. It's slow, it's repetitive, and laden with shameless attempts to be controversial and innovative. The fact that this film has critics in awe is extremely worrying, and it makes me wonder whether people know what makes a good film anymore.
On a vaguely positive note, the title is appropriate. There is, indeed, a great deal of falling that occurs in this film. In fact, any fans of seeing people repeatedly fall over for no discernible reason are in for a real treat. Unfortunately for the rest, you may risk falling asleep.
3/10