I borrowed this movie from the library, and honestly, my expectations were pretty low. This was released direct to DVD in the US, and despite De Niro being in it, that no longer means quality. Surprisingly, though, for a movie like this, it's really not that bad. De Niro is not a bad guy, though a stern character, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is a great character that you really sympathize with. I felt a few cliches in the beginning, but it wears off quickly. It does end up being a 'bus' movie, and everyone involved and watching this movie had or has "Speed" pass through their thought process, but this movie doesn't feel like a rip off. If you like De Niro, or action movies, I would give this a recommendation. It's definitely better than average, and could've made a little money if it had been released in theaters. 6/10.
Reviews
67 Reviews
Big Brother Reindeer Games
(2023– )
A Somewhat Sweet, Short Game
22 December 2023
What happens when you open a candy cane? You start sucking on it. The sweetness is a festive treat, but the longer you suck on, you realize it's more of a chore to get through. You realize why they're not around all year.
When the WGA and Actors caused a strike in 2023, CBS was scrambling for programming. Multiple game shows and extended reality series flooded the channel, plus repeats of "Yellowstone". As "Big Brother 25" was finishing up, the execs at CBS were brainstorming on what else they could air. Another season of "Big Brother"? "How 'bout this? It's the holidays soon, "Big Brother: Reindeer Games", the exec suggested.
Well, here we are. It's a familiar game, but it's not quite the same. The cast members don't live in the house. There's no live feeds. No live episodes. It's a more condensed series. Yeah, they play games, and they talk to the camera. It's a little familiar.
Under these circumstances, it's unfair to come down hard on this show. There wasn't much time to get this show to work, and not much prep time.
For being a limited series, which may not return, I find it important, still, to try to like the cast. Unfortunately, not being familiar with the previous seasons, besides 25, familiarity won't be a factor to me. I didn't enjoy all the players, and for a reality show, that's normal, but the players on this show were on here for such a short time, they probably didn't even know each other that well.
I was intrigued at first, but after three episodes, and knowing there weren't many more, I didn't really care what happened next, or felt I could root for anyone. It was just... another thing to watch during the holidays, with decorations, and Santa, and so forth.
I can appreciate the circumstances, and the efforts on some parts, but the overall result is just fluff. In 10-20 years, it's unlikely that viewers will want to revisit this. It has its place in history. An oddity that has some sweetness, but not enough to really revisit or come back to.
5/10.
When the WGA and Actors caused a strike in 2023, CBS was scrambling for programming. Multiple game shows and extended reality series flooded the channel, plus repeats of "Yellowstone". As "Big Brother 25" was finishing up, the execs at CBS were brainstorming on what else they could air. Another season of "Big Brother"? "How 'bout this? It's the holidays soon, "Big Brother: Reindeer Games", the exec suggested.
Well, here we are. It's a familiar game, but it's not quite the same. The cast members don't live in the house. There's no live feeds. No live episodes. It's a more condensed series. Yeah, they play games, and they talk to the camera. It's a little familiar.
Under these circumstances, it's unfair to come down hard on this show. There wasn't much time to get this show to work, and not much prep time.
For being a limited series, which may not return, I find it important, still, to try to like the cast. Unfortunately, not being familiar with the previous seasons, besides 25, familiarity won't be a factor to me. I didn't enjoy all the players, and for a reality show, that's normal, but the players on this show were on here for such a short time, they probably didn't even know each other that well.
I was intrigued at first, but after three episodes, and knowing there weren't many more, I didn't really care what happened next, or felt I could root for anyone. It was just... another thing to watch during the holidays, with decorations, and Santa, and so forth.
I can appreciate the circumstances, and the efforts on some parts, but the overall result is just fluff. In 10-20 years, it's unlikely that viewers will want to revisit this. It has its place in history. An oddity that has some sweetness, but not enough to really revisit or come back to.
5/10.
Mixed Nuts
(1994)
Mixed Emotions
10 December 2023
So I always enjoy Steve Martin. He's not what you'd call a movie star, or a typical leading man (and that's not a bad thing). He brings a lot of fun to roles, and I always enjoy him in film.
As it was nearing Christmas at the time I saw this movie was available for free, I decided I'd go for it. Now, with movies, if one is a classic, then most people have seen it. Stuff like "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", people know and love. I'll see the stuff that people regard as classic, if I haven't already, but I love doing the deep dives, and seeing what most people haven't.
Now clearly if this movie were really good, more people would talk about it, and by other reviews on here, some do really like it. Here's what I think:
Nora Epron was a good director. Not everything she directed was great ("Bewitched", yeesh.) I think what stands out in her films is the characters. That's what we remember the most. She'll get a great cast, and make some good films, but not every film made by every great director works.
The tone of this movie is a little off. It's not really that funny. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of silly stuff that's supposed to be funny, and the comedic acting from Martin was good effort, but the thing is, he can't save a picture with so many other characters. The movie doesn't really have focus. It jumps between characters, and some we may not really want to know. Some are just barely more than one note, too.
So without really funny scenes, or character development, it's really just chaos. There's a version of this movie that would work, but I think it has to go further in one direction or the other, tonally.
If you're looking for something a little outside of normal Christmas fare, and can keep expectations low, it might be worth a try, but for some people, it'll be like nails on a chalkboard. 5/10.
As it was nearing Christmas at the time I saw this movie was available for free, I decided I'd go for it. Now, with movies, if one is a classic, then most people have seen it. Stuff like "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", people know and love. I'll see the stuff that people regard as classic, if I haven't already, but I love doing the deep dives, and seeing what most people haven't.
Now clearly if this movie were really good, more people would talk about it, and by other reviews on here, some do really like it. Here's what I think:
Nora Epron was a good director. Not everything she directed was great ("Bewitched", yeesh.) I think what stands out in her films is the characters. That's what we remember the most. She'll get a great cast, and make some good films, but not every film made by every great director works.
The tone of this movie is a little off. It's not really that funny. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of silly stuff that's supposed to be funny, and the comedic acting from Martin was good effort, but the thing is, he can't save a picture with so many other characters. The movie doesn't really have focus. It jumps between characters, and some we may not really want to know. Some are just barely more than one note, too.
So without really funny scenes, or character development, it's really just chaos. There's a version of this movie that would work, but I think it has to go further in one direction or the other, tonally.
If you're looking for something a little outside of normal Christmas fare, and can keep expectations low, it might be worth a try, but for some people, it'll be like nails on a chalkboard. 5/10.
Yellowstone
(2018– )
Yellowstoned: A Lesson in Fighting and Soap
6 November 2023
As "Yellowstone" premiered, it arrived with a dull thump. On a network that people never really paid attention, it wasn't exactly a dud, but it took a while to catch most people's attention. As years went on, more people found the series, and it grew. Rerunning on CMT and CBS, it finally arrived as the centerpiece for America's attention.
The question is: After all this time, is it worth paying attention to? Well, like most things, it's a convoluted answer.
To a certain degree, a basic, good guys and bad guys tale, certainly can taste good, when we've been inundated with large productions, visual effects extravaganzas, and richly written indies that try to be both the original and familiar stories that people claim they want.
But here is the kicker, it's plain. A little too plain. Like Kevin Costner. It goes back and forth, from soapy soap opera, problems and so forth, to fighting. It softens before the episode ends, but it's more of the same in the next chapter, next season.
Originally a miniseries, but kept going at the behest of Costner, who simply enjoyed making the show, it doesn't exude much change from episode to episode. A few big moments happen, buildings explode and the such, but it returns to who said this, and we have to do something about this guy.
As a way to end a Sunday night, it's dramatic fluff, and when you're settling down for the night, getting ready for the week, there's a strange comfort in keeping the show on, but as an interesting, binge-y type show that you can run to your co-workers about the next day, it's sadly lacking. Similar to the "Avatar" movies, it's nice to look at, but it's pure cotton candy, and we can only eat so much of that before we need our teeth brushed. 5/10.
The question is: After all this time, is it worth paying attention to? Well, like most things, it's a convoluted answer.
To a certain degree, a basic, good guys and bad guys tale, certainly can taste good, when we've been inundated with large productions, visual effects extravaganzas, and richly written indies that try to be both the original and familiar stories that people claim they want.
But here is the kicker, it's plain. A little too plain. Like Kevin Costner. It goes back and forth, from soapy soap opera, problems and so forth, to fighting. It softens before the episode ends, but it's more of the same in the next chapter, next season.
Originally a miniseries, but kept going at the behest of Costner, who simply enjoyed making the show, it doesn't exude much change from episode to episode. A few big moments happen, buildings explode and the such, but it returns to who said this, and we have to do something about this guy.
As a way to end a Sunday night, it's dramatic fluff, and when you're settling down for the night, getting ready for the week, there's a strange comfort in keeping the show on, but as an interesting, binge-y type show that you can run to your co-workers about the next day, it's sadly lacking. Similar to the "Avatar" movies, it's nice to look at, but it's pure cotton candy, and we can only eat so much of that before we need our teeth brushed. 5/10.
Frasier
(2023– )
Crane-ing in the Right Direction
20 October 2023
I never watched "Cheers" or "Frasier" on a regular basis, so I guess you can take that into consideration with my review. There are a lot of excruciatingly negative reviews, and the problem with that is... they're separate shows. "But it's a continuation!" No. Not exactly. Honestly, it's more like a spin off. I think this show can hold its own with the new characters. The first few episodes of a show is the plot and grounding. If you expect a pilot of a new show to be hysterically funny right away, you don't know sitcoms. They're setting things up, getting you to know the characters. You don't know who these characters are. What people are complaining about is the newness. Where are all the characters I know? Those actors aren't interested in the show at this time. Here are new characters. Don't like them? Don't watch. It's pretty obvious what to do. I feel like this is a fine show. I laugh out loud once an episode, and for a brand new show, that's fine by me. Do I find the nephew annoying? Absolutely. But would I watch more if it was that much of an issue? No, but I am. Kelsey Grammer is good as Frasier. It's funny see him in new situations, with people that are the complete opposite of him. Sorry not sorry, I like this show. Watch it, and calm down. It's funny!
That's not a sequel, that's a sequel.
11 October 2023
When I was a lot younger, I enjoyed the 'Crocodile' Dundee movies. I own all three of them. There was a part of me that thought they should make another one. Well even though we got a commercial advertising Australia, and that seemed to spark interest for a millisecond, it doesn't seem like we'll get one. However, we got this, and granted it's set in real life, outside of the movies, it's alright. Movies, in general, that feature actors playing themselves, can be quite funny. Depending on who's poking fun at themselves, the results can be downright hysterical. (Ever seen "This is the End"?) Now, we have that premise, with some actors that aren't exactly A or B class, however that's not always important. Is Paul Hogan funny? He is. If all you know him is from the 'Dundee' movies, that's a good start. In general, he's not a chameleon of comedy, but he's got good timing, can deal self referential humor, and in this, seems like a real person, not a cardboard cutout. So I think, like if you watch the third "Bill & Ted" movie, seeing him in something newer than 2001 is fine. He really keeps the movie going, in this case. The next great comedian in this movie is John Cleese. Cleese has been in so many movies and shows at this point, you'd think he spends most of his days on sets then at home. He's in some good stuff, some bad stuff, and some... so-so stuff. He's pretty good in this, I'd say. Really a highlight from what I remember of this movie. Overall, without blabbing on much more, this is one of those movies that, if you see it as a free option on streaming, and you like Hogan, or anyone else in the cast, give it a shot. It's worth once a view. Nothing in my opinion to seek out, or pay a lot for, but if you see it's available, pull up a seat, sit back, and just enjoy the easy laughs that come.
5/10.
5/10.
Big Brother
(II) (2000– )
Always Watching: A Highlight Reel
17 September 2023
A long-standing series, from the onset of when reality TV was in its heyday, "Big Brother" is a glorified highlight reel, with a few talking heads, explaining what's going on. The key interest point, like most reality shows, is the housemates themselves. With several differing personalities, it's easy for a viewer to pick a favorite. The attractive blond, the scheming backstabber, the the inseparable buddies, and more. As its 25th season continues, it's routinely more of the same. In the newer seasons, there are ways to watch the houseguests when the show isn't on, but frankly, it's a yawn-fest. They're sitting. They're talking. They're sleeping. They're... eating. Then you have the feed cut out at random times, or for a long period of time. When you see the contestants in the competitions and games in real time, they will be sitting or standing for an extended period of time. They look bored. They make little silly comments. Then it's whipped up into a highlight reel for the next episode. The long and short is, you can get into some of the houseguests, and root for them to win, and it's moderately entertaining, the people are the interesting part, but as a whole, the show is relatively banal.
Strange Brew
(1983)
Watch this movie, then take off!
24 August 2023
As a Canadian, this felt like a movie I needed to see. When I was younger, I enjoyed watching "SCTV", and a film spin-off to me, seemed pretty neat. So Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis did double duty on this movie, by acting and directing (which isn't easy, by the way), and to make a feature film about two goofy Canadians, and have it be successful is impressive. The brothers in the movie aren't expanded upon. They're pretty one note, which I guess is fine. If you like the sketches with them, you'll like the movie. It's pretty simple. There's a love interest thrown in for measure, some big action pieces, too. It's all very silly, though, like the films based on "Saturday Night Live" sketches, except this doesn't make the characters too realistic. Yes, they have a home, and live with their parents, and have a dog, but there's nothing beyond that. It's literally a longer sketch with a bigger budget. I'm certainly not complaining, but I know sometimes people want adaptations of things to be deeper.
I think it's a perfect weekend afternoon movie. It's just a bunch of silliness. If you like "A Night at the Roxbury", it's like that, but with less story and dramatic moments. Give it a try if you like silly and haven't seen it yet.
I think it's a perfect weekend afternoon movie. It's just a bunch of silliness. If you like "A Night at the Roxbury", it's like that, but with less story and dramatic moments. Give it a try if you like silly and haven't seen it yet.
White Coats
(2004)
Whiteout (This Movie)
24 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was interested in watching this film because of Dave Thomas. He directed "Strange Brew", which I enjoyed, and even though my expectations were low, I gave this movie a shot.
It's very disjointed as a whole, and I can see why it isn't something many people know about, or have seen. It's got some familiar faces, but they're not the main characters. The main characters are actors I've never seen, with the exception of Carly Pope. (Who's actually quite good in this.) Now, everyone in front of the camera and behind it are likely Canadian, so that might explain why I don't recognize too many people in this. Thomas bookends the film and pops up here and there, but mainly stays behind the camera. Dan Aykroyd pops up here and there, and is relatively amusing. Dave Foley is in a handful of scenes, but he plays an awful, unlikable character. Matt Frewer was funny to see in this. His character is a teacher that's just bizarre. So, the (somewhat) notable names are there, and I think I helps the movie. Some of the characters aren't believable, though, or just act strange. Thomas is going for character comedy, but the casting of the main characters, I think, hinders the project.
What does not help the movie is the scenes showing fake, but realistic surgery scenes. There isn't a lot, but we also see dead bodies and a scene with lots of organs being thrown around. Even a scene where an intern accidentally throws up into a body. Yuck.
Did I laugh out loud at all? Sure. A few times, but even bad movies can give you a laugh or two. I wanted to like this movie, but by the end, it just felt like a lot to take. Character comedy, cringe comedy, shock value, romantic subplots, and a third act that tries to get slightly more dramatic, after we've seen these characters goof off most of the film.
I can't recommend it, honestly. I really wish I could, but it's just a huge mishmash of mush.
4/10.
It's very disjointed as a whole, and I can see why it isn't something many people know about, or have seen. It's got some familiar faces, but they're not the main characters. The main characters are actors I've never seen, with the exception of Carly Pope. (Who's actually quite good in this.) Now, everyone in front of the camera and behind it are likely Canadian, so that might explain why I don't recognize too many people in this. Thomas bookends the film and pops up here and there, but mainly stays behind the camera. Dan Aykroyd pops up here and there, and is relatively amusing. Dave Foley is in a handful of scenes, but he plays an awful, unlikable character. Matt Frewer was funny to see in this. His character is a teacher that's just bizarre. So, the (somewhat) notable names are there, and I think I helps the movie. Some of the characters aren't believable, though, or just act strange. Thomas is going for character comedy, but the casting of the main characters, I think, hinders the project.
What does not help the movie is the scenes showing fake, but realistic surgery scenes. There isn't a lot, but we also see dead bodies and a scene with lots of organs being thrown around. Even a scene where an intern accidentally throws up into a body. Yuck.
Did I laugh out loud at all? Sure. A few times, but even bad movies can give you a laugh or two. I wanted to like this movie, but by the end, it just felt like a lot to take. Character comedy, cringe comedy, shock value, romantic subplots, and a third act that tries to get slightly more dramatic, after we've seen these characters goof off most of the film.
I can't recommend it, honestly. I really wish I could, but it's just a huge mishmash of mush.
4/10.
Knockaround Guys
(2001)
Come and Knock on this Door... with medium expectations.
29 January 2023
I missed this movie when it was in theaters, and as the years went by, the title would pop up every once in a while. I like Green, Diesel and action comedies, so when I found it was available at my local library, I borrowed it. This is one of those movies that I think most people haven't seen, and it's not bad.... but it's not worth revisiting.
First off, it's purely an action thriller, the comedic elements are entirely miniscule. All chalked up into the trailer, it seems like it might have some funny bits, but none more than will give you a smirk, watching the whole thing. Even Green, who's great at comedy, is muted. He has the 2000s hair style, but he's serious. Vin Diesel plays the heavy. There isn't much to his character, but it is fun to see him beat up the bad guys.
I came away from this movie liking it, but not enough to buy it or re-watch it, and believe that mainly undemanding action fans, or fans of anyone in the cast might enjoy it. It's serious, but not dreary, a little slow, but not boring. It just teeters enough to be entertaining. If you can find it for free, and you like action/gangster movies, it's worth a viewing, I'd say.
First off, it's purely an action thriller, the comedic elements are entirely miniscule. All chalked up into the trailer, it seems like it might have some funny bits, but none more than will give you a smirk, watching the whole thing. Even Green, who's great at comedy, is muted. He has the 2000s hair style, but he's serious. Vin Diesel plays the heavy. There isn't much to his character, but it is fun to see him beat up the bad guys.
I came away from this movie liking it, but not enough to buy it or re-watch it, and believe that mainly undemanding action fans, or fans of anyone in the cast might enjoy it. It's serious, but not dreary, a little slow, but not boring. It just teeters enough to be entertaining. If you can find it for free, and you like action/gangster movies, it's worth a viewing, I'd say.
Showtime
(2002)
Leave 'Showtime' to Beetlejuice
27 September 2022
I'd spent many years not seeing this movie, simply because it wasn't available to me. I was interested, but the opportunity didn't appear for quite some time. When the opportunity finally came, I'm disappointed to say that it just wasn't worth the wait. Funnily enough, I also watched "Pluto Nash" the same week as this, and honestly, that was funnier, despite people regarding it as one of the worst movies ever made.
Here's the issues. Both Murphy and De Niro have been in comedic films that were actually good, but the key thing with those movies, was the writing. The writing in this movie is atrocious. There were no moments that made me laugh. It's a comedy, with nothing funny. I caught myself guessing the jokes before they happened. That's not a good sign.
In 2002, Eddie Murphy had gone the watered down, family friendly/PG-13 route, which honestly, is fine. It's his career, and that's what he chose to make. But audiences weren't feeling it. He wasn't adding anything new. Some comedians can ride a wave for a while, but it takes a really good comedian to reinvent himself periodically, and have a success.
De Niro had shown that he could satirize himself in "Meet the Parents" "Analyze This", and it worked. So he popped up in comedic films here and there, and most did well.
I feel like some studios feel that simply putting a big name in a movie will be enough to make a movie great, but in this case, it didn't.
Both main characters have one character trait. Murphy is obnoxious. De Niro is annoyed. Beyond that, they don't budge until a short part near the end.
So between a movie that isn't particularly funny, two characters that are basically one emotion the whole time, a villain that's basically third banana and unimportant, and a basic story about a reality TV cop show, there isn't much to enjoy.
Rene Russo and William Shatner add nothing. The whole movie is like a stretched out, bad sketch. I can't recommend this movie, there just simply isn't anything in it to enjoy. Look elsewhere!
Here's the issues. Both Murphy and De Niro have been in comedic films that were actually good, but the key thing with those movies, was the writing. The writing in this movie is atrocious. There were no moments that made me laugh. It's a comedy, with nothing funny. I caught myself guessing the jokes before they happened. That's not a good sign.
In 2002, Eddie Murphy had gone the watered down, family friendly/PG-13 route, which honestly, is fine. It's his career, and that's what he chose to make. But audiences weren't feeling it. He wasn't adding anything new. Some comedians can ride a wave for a while, but it takes a really good comedian to reinvent himself periodically, and have a success.
De Niro had shown that he could satirize himself in "Meet the Parents" "Analyze This", and it worked. So he popped up in comedic films here and there, and most did well.
I feel like some studios feel that simply putting a big name in a movie will be enough to make a movie great, but in this case, it didn't.
Both main characters have one character trait. Murphy is obnoxious. De Niro is annoyed. Beyond that, they don't budge until a short part near the end.
So between a movie that isn't particularly funny, two characters that are basically one emotion the whole time, a villain that's basically third banana and unimportant, and a basic story about a reality TV cop show, there isn't much to enjoy.
Rene Russo and William Shatner add nothing. The whole movie is like a stretched out, bad sketch. I can't recommend this movie, there just simply isn't anything in it to enjoy. Look elsewhere!
A crazy, mind bending movie. Bizarre, yet not rewarding.
15 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I, like most people, line up for every Marvel movie. It's not even a choice at this point, unfortunately. I've seen every Marvel film from 2008's "Iron Man" on, and it's been a long journey since then.
There have been lots of great ones, as well as a few letdowns. I find that, personally, I was really invested in the beginning. The Marvel movies I really enjoyed were early on. As there became more characters, TV shows, and post credit scenes you had to go online to understand, it became convoluted, and inevitably, too saturated.
The worldwide phenomenon is just too big now. So, naturally, here we are at the multiverse. Now Marvel plans to get even bigger.
It's just too much.
Alright, so, we have Doctor Strange. A crabby, snide, somewhat wisecracking hero.
Was his origin story interesting? It WAS! The last "Doctor Strange" movie (no, not "No Way Home"), was interesting, funny and had heart. Does this one, too?? Does it??
No. It's a horror movie. Not the whole way through. It starts like a regular Marvel movie, and gradually goes "dark", as most reviewers are calling it.
Sam Raimi has a style all his own. Starting a long career with lots of gruesome student films, and finally getting an NC-17 rated horror movie released in theaters, most of us came to realize what Raimi excelled in, and what to expect out of his films. Even his PG-13 fare and "Oz", which was meant for family audiences (right, lol) were well made, but odd, weird and creepy.
For older fans, seeing Raimi return to the superhero genre after 2002's "Spider-Man", we can't help but compare it, and relish seeing him helm this.
After the wondrous affair the was "Wandavision", it's a shame to see Wanda become the "big bad". We follow her point of view, try to understand where she's coming from, but it's a bummer. Her character arc ends here. It's a shame.
Benedict Cumberbatch is a fantastic actor, and as long as we know how good he is in everything we see him in (am I biased? Lol), we can forgive movies like this for not being one of the best we've ever seen.
Overpowering dead bodies is a thing I think we don't need to see. That's for sure. By the time we get to the ending, we've seen things go from normal, to beyond bizarre.
The writer brings in characters we've only seen on the small screen to butcher them. That's unfortunate. I get the reasoning. Well, I mean... not really.
The internet and generation Z seem to really eat this movie up. They've seen little to no Raimi films, and that's why it's a big deal to them.
It's just... an odd choice to go in this direction. But hey, it got people in seats.
Oh wait, Marvel movies always get people in movie theater seats.
There have been lots of great ones, as well as a few letdowns. I find that, personally, I was really invested in the beginning. The Marvel movies I really enjoyed were early on. As there became more characters, TV shows, and post credit scenes you had to go online to understand, it became convoluted, and inevitably, too saturated.
The worldwide phenomenon is just too big now. So, naturally, here we are at the multiverse. Now Marvel plans to get even bigger.
It's just too much.
Alright, so, we have Doctor Strange. A crabby, snide, somewhat wisecracking hero.
Was his origin story interesting? It WAS! The last "Doctor Strange" movie (no, not "No Way Home"), was interesting, funny and had heart. Does this one, too?? Does it??
No. It's a horror movie. Not the whole way through. It starts like a regular Marvel movie, and gradually goes "dark", as most reviewers are calling it.
Sam Raimi has a style all his own. Starting a long career with lots of gruesome student films, and finally getting an NC-17 rated horror movie released in theaters, most of us came to realize what Raimi excelled in, and what to expect out of his films. Even his PG-13 fare and "Oz", which was meant for family audiences (right, lol) were well made, but odd, weird and creepy.
For older fans, seeing Raimi return to the superhero genre after 2002's "Spider-Man", we can't help but compare it, and relish seeing him helm this.
After the wondrous affair the was "Wandavision", it's a shame to see Wanda become the "big bad". We follow her point of view, try to understand where she's coming from, but it's a bummer. Her character arc ends here. It's a shame.
Benedict Cumberbatch is a fantastic actor, and as long as we know how good he is in everything we see him in (am I biased? Lol), we can forgive movies like this for not being one of the best we've ever seen.
Overpowering dead bodies is a thing I think we don't need to see. That's for sure. By the time we get to the ending, we've seen things go from normal, to beyond bizarre.
The writer brings in characters we've only seen on the small screen to butcher them. That's unfortunate. I get the reasoning. Well, I mean... not really.
The internet and generation Z seem to really eat this movie up. They've seen little to no Raimi films, and that's why it's a big deal to them.
It's just... an odd choice to go in this direction. But hey, it got people in seats.
Oh wait, Marvel movies always get people in movie theater seats.
Not very magical, and somewhat disturbing.
15 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
As the "Harry potter" main series of movies has ended a long while ago, it was money that decided that there must be a way to continue the series, as well as fans showing they was still interested in seeing more.
So what began was a prequel series. All the amazing things that happened before Harry Potter came to be.
Not so.
I would call this series, a less than magical encounter.
The 3rd "Fantastic Beasts" reaches new lows, surprisingly after the second one. Billed by most fans as a minor improvement over the second film, it does little to excite or interest.
A few minor memorable moments, including a quick visit to Hogwarts, and goofing around, walking like crustaceans, only remind you of the length of this movie and how few moments there are that are fun.
Eddie Redmayne and Jude law do their best to bring levity to the project, but lack of interesting dialogue, and a general dreariness to the project make it a bore.
The most offensive part to me, spoilers ahead, is how Grindelwald callously kills a creature, and then reanimates it's body later in the film to gain his place of power. It may be a fantasy creature, but it's upsetting. It will also be upsetting to some animal lovers. It's just creepy and wrong, and disgusting.
As the years pass, this movie will probably pop up on cable periodically, but it's unlikely to be anyone's favorite in the series. It may be best to leave the "Harry Potter" series alone for a long time, until a project can be created that will be truly enjoyable for the whole family. Give it a rest, Warner Bros.
So what began was a prequel series. All the amazing things that happened before Harry Potter came to be.
Not so.
I would call this series, a less than magical encounter.
The 3rd "Fantastic Beasts" reaches new lows, surprisingly after the second one. Billed by most fans as a minor improvement over the second film, it does little to excite or interest.
A few minor memorable moments, including a quick visit to Hogwarts, and goofing around, walking like crustaceans, only remind you of the length of this movie and how few moments there are that are fun.
Eddie Redmayne and Jude law do their best to bring levity to the project, but lack of interesting dialogue, and a general dreariness to the project make it a bore.
The most offensive part to me, spoilers ahead, is how Grindelwald callously kills a creature, and then reanimates it's body later in the film to gain his place of power. It may be a fantasy creature, but it's upsetting. It will also be upsetting to some animal lovers. It's just creepy and wrong, and disgusting.
As the years pass, this movie will probably pop up on cable periodically, but it's unlikely to be anyone's favorite in the series. It may be best to leave the "Harry Potter" series alone for a long time, until a project can be created that will be truly enjoyable for the whole family. Give it a rest, Warner Bros.
Family Camp
(2022)
A Decent Family Outing
15 May 2022
I have to start my review out by saying that, as someone that has enjoyed The Skit Guys for years, I'm bound to be biased about their first movie. The teaser for this movie played for multiple years on their show, and I wondered how much longer it was going to take.
First off, Tommy and Eddie (the comedians, not the characters) mesh really well together. You know they've been friends in real life because you can sense it in their videos. They're genuine friends for life. Now, imagine one of the characters they're playing is not in the habit of caring much about Church, and the other character is ridiculously obnoxious. Want to see a movie about those two characters that's almost two hours long? Even if in the end they learn to be better people?
Ehhhhhh. Not really.
Neither of the characters they play are someone you want to spend time with, and Leigh-Allyn Baker's character is quite over the top, and annoying.
In the beginning of the movie, there's almost a vibe that's making fun of religion, and the people that partake of Church. It's not heavy handed, but it feels kind of like a little kid giving a middle finger.
It really hurts me to type these words, and maybe you just have to look at the big picture. It's wonderful that Eddie and Tommy (the comedians, not the characters) made a movie. It's great to see them on the big screen.
The characters, the lack of really funny bits, the length, and the up and down heavy parts just didn't mesh for me.
I'm proud of them for being able to make a movie, and all the work that it entailed to make this. I'll give them that.
But as a movie, I can't really recommend it for anybody. I know some people are already giving it a 10 out of 10, and I'm glad they enjoyed it.
I'm not hating on this movie, I'm just saying that by the next movie they (hopefully) make, I hope it's more enjoyable to me.
First off, Tommy and Eddie (the comedians, not the characters) mesh really well together. You know they've been friends in real life because you can sense it in their videos. They're genuine friends for life. Now, imagine one of the characters they're playing is not in the habit of caring much about Church, and the other character is ridiculously obnoxious. Want to see a movie about those two characters that's almost two hours long? Even if in the end they learn to be better people?
Ehhhhhh. Not really.
Neither of the characters they play are someone you want to spend time with, and Leigh-Allyn Baker's character is quite over the top, and annoying.
In the beginning of the movie, there's almost a vibe that's making fun of religion, and the people that partake of Church. It's not heavy handed, but it feels kind of like a little kid giving a middle finger.
It really hurts me to type these words, and maybe you just have to look at the big picture. It's wonderful that Eddie and Tommy (the comedians, not the characters) made a movie. It's great to see them on the big screen.
The characters, the lack of really funny bits, the length, and the up and down heavy parts just didn't mesh for me.
I'm proud of them for being able to make a movie, and all the work that it entailed to make this. I'll give them that.
But as a movie, I can't really recommend it for anybody. I know some people are already giving it a 10 out of 10, and I'm glad they enjoyed it.
I'm not hating on this movie, I'm just saying that by the next movie they (hopefully) make, I hope it's more enjoyable to me.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife
(2021)
An Absolute Blast!
28 November 2021
I spent a lot of time waiting on this movie. My hopes remained high through the release date changes, and with what little footage was released over time.
I'm very, very happy to say... that this is a fantastic sequel! It's lighthearted, not overly monstrous and terrifying, and wonderful to see this cast in action!
Jason Reitman has done a wonderful job taking the reigns from his father. Everything just clicks really well. It's not overly pushy nostalgia, as I heard people say from before. The story is well paced, the music reminds me of the previous films, and the visuals are extremely well done, especially in the third act.
I've seen multiple movies with McKenna Grace, and it's funny to see her being a little more robotic and jokey in a "stone faced" way. She's playing intelligent, but a bit of an outsider without the dramatic attachment. I think she's a wonder of an actress. Carrie Coon is someone I've enjoyed since "Gone Girl". Her performance here is a little sarcastic, with a touch of someone that you know drinks. Things change for her character, and she really leans well into the part. Two really great actresses!
You really couldn't have asked for a better sequel. It's hard to make a great "Part III" to anything, but I'd put this up high, next time anyone asks me to pick one.
Highly recommended!
I'm very, very happy to say... that this is a fantastic sequel! It's lighthearted, not overly monstrous and terrifying, and wonderful to see this cast in action!
Jason Reitman has done a wonderful job taking the reigns from his father. Everything just clicks really well. It's not overly pushy nostalgia, as I heard people say from before. The story is well paced, the music reminds me of the previous films, and the visuals are extremely well done, especially in the third act.
I've seen multiple movies with McKenna Grace, and it's funny to see her being a little more robotic and jokey in a "stone faced" way. She's playing intelligent, but a bit of an outsider without the dramatic attachment. I think she's a wonder of an actress. Carrie Coon is someone I've enjoyed since "Gone Girl". Her performance here is a little sarcastic, with a touch of someone that you know drinks. Things change for her character, and she really leans well into the part. Two really great actresses!
You really couldn't have asked for a better sequel. It's hard to make a great "Part III" to anything, but I'd put this up high, next time anyone asks me to pick one.
Highly recommended!
Tom and Jerry
(II) (2021)
Not the kind of "Story" that I would have preferred...
19 April 2021
I spent a lot of time waiting to see this movie. I hoped it would be an amusing film, with frenetic cartoon action, a few chuckles, and an overall fun time. I didn't feel, after seeing it, that it fulfilled it's duty as a fun family film.
Now there are definitely some pros. The animation, the score, the look of the film. All good.
I think, first off, that Tim Story was the wrong choice for this film. I think the directing was poor, and the acting was a little flat. (Not to mention he's directed R-rated content prior to this.) Some of the action felt very strange, like seeing the giant clouds of action when the characters were fighting, in the real world. That felt so weird to me.
I think Michael Pena is a good actor and good at comedy, but as the bad guy, he felt out of place. Chloe Grace Moretz was an odd choice I thought, as well. She exists in a G-rated movie here, when we all know the R-rated films she's been in remind us of who she's known for playing.
I think adding hip-hop culture to this film makes no sense, and throws off the balance of the film. When you get rappers playing cats, it feels odd.
I like animated films based on cartoons, and live action/animated films, too.
The main characters seemed like themselves, and acted right. So it's really the rest of the film that's just wrong.
I guess this was a decent try, and I'd like to see more attempts to recapture the fun of older cartoon characters, but give them to people that know how to *really* write and direct well, and take as much time as you need to make it a fantastic film. Don't rush them, or give them to people that will make it their own thing, sidestepping how they should be. 4/10.
Now there are definitely some pros. The animation, the score, the look of the film. All good.
I think, first off, that Tim Story was the wrong choice for this film. I think the directing was poor, and the acting was a little flat. (Not to mention he's directed R-rated content prior to this.) Some of the action felt very strange, like seeing the giant clouds of action when the characters were fighting, in the real world. That felt so weird to me.
I think Michael Pena is a good actor and good at comedy, but as the bad guy, he felt out of place. Chloe Grace Moretz was an odd choice I thought, as well. She exists in a G-rated movie here, when we all know the R-rated films she's been in remind us of who she's known for playing.
I think adding hip-hop culture to this film makes no sense, and throws off the balance of the film. When you get rappers playing cats, it feels odd.
I like animated films based on cartoons, and live action/animated films, too.
The main characters seemed like themselves, and acted right. So it's really the rest of the film that's just wrong.
I guess this was a decent try, and I'd like to see more attempts to recapture the fun of older cartoon characters, but give them to people that know how to *really* write and direct well, and take as much time as you need to make it a fantastic film. Don't rush them, or give them to people that will make it their own thing, sidestepping how they should be. 4/10.
Bill & Ted Face the Music
(2020)
Not Excellent, but Not Bogus Either
18 September 2020
The original two "Bill & Ted" movies have definitely made a place for themself in film history. The original classic, though somewhat dated now, has a great comic tone. It's a wave of 80s nostalgia at this point. A film with two friends, not the brightest two guys, but hey, we like them. The second film is absolutely fascinating. The design, effects, the original story. I think it's growing on people more these days. A worthy, if not unusual sequel that should be checked out. And now, so many years later.... another adventure. Is it good? Well it brings a wonderful feeling, like seeing two old friends again, after so long. That's a pretty good feeling. That feeling lasts most of the film. The direction is good. The writing is.... well... adequate. I like that the original writers came back. That means something to me. They didn't try and freshen it up, reboot it, none of that. So there are positive points there. Now, I am sad to report, that as a comedy, I didn't laugh much. The music was........ unmemorable, in my opinion. But honestly, it is such a good try. The good outdoes the bad. It's great to see another "Bill & Ted" movie, especially since I saw it on the big screen. I didn't see the others on the big screen. So, most B&T fans will enjoy it, I think. If you have an easygoing mindset, and don't expect too much, I think you'll enjoy it. 5/10
Camp Nowhere
(1994)
Lloyd Steals the Show
5 July 2020
Firstly, after revisiting this movie, I can easily say Christopher Lloyd steals the show! I love how he plays different characters to convince the kids' parents to send them to camp. It's pretty funny, and Lloyd is absolutely the best part of this movie!
Secondly, anyone that's a "Back to the Future" fan will enjoy the scenes where Lloyd interacts with a Tom Wilson, playing an incompetent state trooper. It's kind of fun to see Wilson play the fool, and not a bad guy.
The kids do an alright job. A lot aren't particularly memorable, but this is a reasonably easy going film, just meant for yuks. It's from the '90s, but luckily doesn't feel ridiculously dated.
I was a tad surprised at the language, including a few "G-D" words. I mean, the content is a little more harsh than your usual kids flick, but it's not non-stop, or overtly explicit.
I like the idea of revisiting this film every so often, as it's just fun, and doesn't take much effort to enjoy. A film, in my opinion, that's a decent recommendation to older kids, and '90s nostalgia fans. 6/10
Secondly, anyone that's a "Back to the Future" fan will enjoy the scenes where Lloyd interacts with a Tom Wilson, playing an incompetent state trooper. It's kind of fun to see Wilson play the fool, and not a bad guy.
The kids do an alright job. A lot aren't particularly memorable, but this is a reasonably easy going film, just meant for yuks. It's from the '90s, but luckily doesn't feel ridiculously dated.
I was a tad surprised at the language, including a few "G-D" words. I mean, the content is a little more harsh than your usual kids flick, but it's not non-stop, or overtly explicit.
I like the idea of revisiting this film every so often, as it's just fun, and doesn't take much effort to enjoy. A film, in my opinion, that's a decent recommendation to older kids, and '90s nostalgia fans. 6/10
Dragnet
(1987)
Just the Facts
5 July 2020
I'm partial to movies with Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks, because they're likable. I'd seen bits and pieces of this film when I was younger, but not the whole thing. So I borrowed it, sat down, and watched it in full.
Aykroyd disappears into the part. It's very funny how he plays this role. He's strictly by the books, and that works well when you bring in Hanks' character. They don't hate each other because they're different, and that's refreshing. But it's a "buddy cop" comedy, you know the drill.
I wasn't really into the story. It just wasn't that interesting to me. The comedy isn't laugh out loud, either. You get the feeling like if the movie had better writers (Sorry, Dan), it could've been pretty funny. I'll always appreciate a comedy film version of a dramatic TV series. It's just a fun take off, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons the "Jump Street" movies are so funny.
So I guess it's just amusing to see Aykroyd and Hanks play off each other, some funny lines, and some entertaining homages to the series. (For "Blues Brothers" fans, it's also funny to see Aykroyd play off of Kathleen Freeman again. Funny scene!) I wouldn't highly recommend this film, but if you can borrow it from the library or stream it for free, and you like either of these guys, you'll find it alright. 5/10
Aykroyd disappears into the part. It's very funny how he plays this role. He's strictly by the books, and that works well when you bring in Hanks' character. They don't hate each other because they're different, and that's refreshing. But it's a "buddy cop" comedy, you know the drill.
I wasn't really into the story. It just wasn't that interesting to me. The comedy isn't laugh out loud, either. You get the feeling like if the movie had better writers (Sorry, Dan), it could've been pretty funny. I'll always appreciate a comedy film version of a dramatic TV series. It's just a fun take off, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons the "Jump Street" movies are so funny.
So I guess it's just amusing to see Aykroyd and Hanks play off each other, some funny lines, and some entertaining homages to the series. (For "Blues Brothers" fans, it's also funny to see Aykroyd play off of Kathleen Freeman again. Funny scene!) I wouldn't highly recommend this film, but if you can borrow it from the library or stream it for free, and you like either of these guys, you'll find it alright. 5/10
Dark Phoenix
(2019)
Not Your Typical Superhero Movie... Better!
20 October 2019
The best way to watch a movie, is by removing expectations, and not listening to others, especially when people complain about a film. It's all subjective to their personal opinions, and what thoughts and attitude they're bringing with them, to the film.
I enjoyed the film.
This "X-Men" film is definitely different than the rest, as it's less an action picture, and more of a character study. It still has the usual explosions, and superheroes saving the human race, but that's not the focus, here. We're treated to a movie about Jean Grey. She's the main focus here. (Hence the title.) Sophie Turner has done wonders with this role! She's an excellent actress, and it's enjoyable to see her acting range. James McAvoy is also terrific in this! He really plays his character so well, just wonderful acting from him.
When you hold this picture up to the other "X-Men" films, it really makes the film series seem discombobulated. Compared to "Days of Future Past", it doesn't quite have the same quality, or fun. Most people seem to think the last time they tried this storyline, in "The Last Stand", that that was a failure. I think the overarching thing about this, is that the "X-Men" movies have been all over the place. It may seem unfair to compare it to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but *that* group of movies follows a timeline. It may jump all over that time line, from end to beginning, but it keeps all the pictures related. If the "X-Men" movies had tried to link together better, I think that would have helped. I also think that although the effort on this film, to distinguish itself from your typical action picture is admirable, but then you have to market it as such. If people don't realise you're tweaking a film in a series like this to more brooding and dark, as well as more personal, more about the characters, rather than pure action, you're going to have a bunch of people that have the wrong expectations, who will simply say this isn't their cup of tea, and say it's garbage. (Which it's not.)
I liked this movie. It wasn't typical. I enjoyed the acting, visuals, direction, and so much more about it! You might like it, too, if you know what to expect, and don't just think it's another action movie. Take a look! 8/10
I enjoyed the film.
This "X-Men" film is definitely different than the rest, as it's less an action picture, and more of a character study. It still has the usual explosions, and superheroes saving the human race, but that's not the focus, here. We're treated to a movie about Jean Grey. She's the main focus here. (Hence the title.) Sophie Turner has done wonders with this role! She's an excellent actress, and it's enjoyable to see her acting range. James McAvoy is also terrific in this! He really plays his character so well, just wonderful acting from him.
When you hold this picture up to the other "X-Men" films, it really makes the film series seem discombobulated. Compared to "Days of Future Past", it doesn't quite have the same quality, or fun. Most people seem to think the last time they tried this storyline, in "The Last Stand", that that was a failure. I think the overarching thing about this, is that the "X-Men" movies have been all over the place. It may seem unfair to compare it to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but *that* group of movies follows a timeline. It may jump all over that time line, from end to beginning, but it keeps all the pictures related. If the "X-Men" movies had tried to link together better, I think that would have helped. I also think that although the effort on this film, to distinguish itself from your typical action picture is admirable, but then you have to market it as such. If people don't realise you're tweaking a film in a series like this to more brooding and dark, as well as more personal, more about the characters, rather than pure action, you're going to have a bunch of people that have the wrong expectations, who will simply say this isn't their cup of tea, and say it's garbage. (Which it's not.)
I liked this movie. It wasn't typical. I enjoyed the acting, visuals, direction, and so much more about it! You might like it, too, if you know what to expect, and don't just think it's another action movie. Take a look! 8/10
The Great Outdoors
(1988)
The Decent Outdoors
20 October 2019
When I was younger, I saw bits and pieces of this film on TV, and it caught my attention for a little while, but I never stuck with it back then. When I found a copy to borrow in my older age, I decided I'd like to see the whole thing, as I like both Candy and Hughes.
What I like: Candy is always fun to watch. He has this warmth and humor that's just so enjoyable. I'm doing my best to catch up on all his work. The actress playing his wife, Stephanie Faracy, seemed like a good match for Candy's character. She balanced him, and had some funny lines, too. (I was trying to figure out where I recognized her from. Later I discovered she was the mom in "Hocus Pocus"! She's funny.) I also liked some of the more slapstick/silly bits, like the water skiing scene, for example.
What I didn't like: I didn't care much for Dan Aykroyd's character, but... I guess that was the point. He was so irritating to me at first, I almost shut the movie off. But, he did the "character transition" thing, and because less of a caricature, and more human near the end. Also, this movie felt a little like "John Hughes lite", but I figured, it was probably the studio that wanted him to deliver a 'PG' film the whole family can watch together, and that's a little more toned down than the stuff he's more remembered for.
The consensus: I think this movie is worth a look, if you're a fan of Candy, '80s comedies, or Hughes work. It may be too much for some children, due to some scary scenes with a bear, and some profanity. For me, it doesn't nearly hit the ringers of the decade, or even Hughes prior (or later) work, but if expectations are kept kind of low, I think you'll enjoy it. 6/10
What I like: Candy is always fun to watch. He has this warmth and humor that's just so enjoyable. I'm doing my best to catch up on all his work. The actress playing his wife, Stephanie Faracy, seemed like a good match for Candy's character. She balanced him, and had some funny lines, too. (I was trying to figure out where I recognized her from. Later I discovered she was the mom in "Hocus Pocus"! She's funny.) I also liked some of the more slapstick/silly bits, like the water skiing scene, for example.
What I didn't like: I didn't care much for Dan Aykroyd's character, but... I guess that was the point. He was so irritating to me at first, I almost shut the movie off. But, he did the "character transition" thing, and because less of a caricature, and more human near the end. Also, this movie felt a little like "John Hughes lite", but I figured, it was probably the studio that wanted him to deliver a 'PG' film the whole family can watch together, and that's a little more toned down than the stuff he's more remembered for.
The consensus: I think this movie is worth a look, if you're a fan of Candy, '80s comedies, or Hughes work. It may be too much for some children, due to some scary scenes with a bear, and some profanity. For me, it doesn't nearly hit the ringers of the decade, or even Hughes prior (or later) work, but if expectations are kept kind of low, I think you'll enjoy it. 6/10
Mystery Science Theater 3000
(2017–2022)
Well.... I'm sorry.
9 June 2019
I love the MST3K Brand, I have since I was young! I grew up with the Comedy Central episodes, and then followed them to the Sci Fi Channel, and even saw the movie in the theater! I really liked the older ones. (And still watch them.) I knew not every one of them was a gem, but I liked most episodes. I have good memories of watching some of them with my Dad, too. I didn't have Netflix when the "new" episodes came on, but finally got to see some after a while. I felt disappointed by them. I haven't finished a full episode. I know they don't have a huge budget due to getting funding through Kickstarter, but it does kind of show, like when the guest stars show up. The guests stars just show up for a minute, and it's like they're on a stage of their own. The bots sound odd to me, too. I don't know why they gave Gypsy a normal woman's voice, that's kind of odd. (I know it wasn't going to be the same actor, but they didn't try to make it sound similar.) I applaud them for trying to continue the series, but I think what made the show good got lost in translation, because it's just not the same or better, in my opinion.
Pain & Gain
(2013)
Not for Everybody, but I Enjoyed It
26 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Straight out the gate, this movie will put off a lot of people. Whether it's the violence, stupidity, or simply Michael Bay's name. My enjoyment of this movie is purely my own, and I don't love everything about it.
I like the satire of the exercise industry, and that Mark and Dwayne commit so well to their characters. They're not playing mind blowing roles, but they do a good job. Ed Harris is just great as his character, he brings some real levity to the role, in a film of full of off the wall characters. I did like the humor as well, it helped things from getting way too dark.
The violence is a bit much, but when does Michael Bay hold back? It's not "Saw" level gore, though. (There aren't organs on display, like in a horror movie.) I think the worst was when a man's head was crushed by a weight, and when one of the characters is grilling disembodied hands to get the fingerprints off. (Yeah, yuck, I know.)
But regardless, the performances, the humor, and the beautiful locations (and ladies, too) keep me coming back to watch this every so often. As mentioned, you should have an idea of what to expect if you're considering this, and some will detest it for various reasons, but I like it. (Though I liked "Transformers 2", so maybe I have no legs to stand on.)
I like the satire of the exercise industry, and that Mark and Dwayne commit so well to their characters. They're not playing mind blowing roles, but they do a good job. Ed Harris is just great as his character, he brings some real levity to the role, in a film of full of off the wall characters. I did like the humor as well, it helped things from getting way too dark.
The violence is a bit much, but when does Michael Bay hold back? It's not "Saw" level gore, though. (There aren't organs on display, like in a horror movie.) I think the worst was when a man's head was crushed by a weight, and when one of the characters is grilling disembodied hands to get the fingerprints off. (Yeah, yuck, I know.)
But regardless, the performances, the humor, and the beautiful locations (and ladies, too) keep me coming back to watch this every so often. As mentioned, you should have an idea of what to expect if you're considering this, and some will detest it for various reasons, but I like it. (Though I liked "Transformers 2", so maybe I have no legs to stand on.)
The Alec Baldwin Show
(2018)
Nice Easygoing Chat Show
4 November 2018
A lot of people have been complaining about this show, but I think some are missing the point. Celebrities go on talk shows, generally, to promote things: movies, shows, etc. This show is more about just having a conversation about them as people, without striking any nerves. It's like being a fly on the wall, and sometimes the conversations are quite enjoyable to hear. It's a very relaxed environment, and for a Sunday night, that's a nice way to cap off the weekend.
Johnny English Strikes Again
(2018)
Johnny Came Back!
27 October 2018
As someone that calls himself a fan of Rowan Atkinson, this movie was of definite interest to me. I've enjoyed Atkinson since the days of Mr. Bean, and specifically enjoyed the first movie based on that series. I kind of liked the first two "Johnny English" movies, but was surprised how much I liked this one!
This one... blew the other two out of the water! I found myself laughing constantly at this movie, it was hysterically funny! This is the perfect movie to take the blues away from you. Not to mention, it's a breath of fresh air, because usually comedy films feel they have to offend, or push the boundaries. Yes, there's some language, and (very) brief rear nudity, but otherwise this is pretty clean comedy, without feeling like it's bland. Atkinson is such a comedic pro, and his physical comedy is genius! I would highly recommend this movie!
This one... blew the other two out of the water! I found myself laughing constantly at this movie, it was hysterically funny! This is the perfect movie to take the blues away from you. Not to mention, it's a breath of fresh air, because usually comedy films feel they have to offend, or push the boundaries. Yes, there's some language, and (very) brief rear nudity, but otherwise this is pretty clean comedy, without feeling like it's bland. Atkinson is such a comedic pro, and his physical comedy is genius! I would highly recommend this movie!
Tell Your Friends