Have you heard about the new SciFi movie starring Keanu Reeves? Me neither, but I went ahead and saw “Replicas” anyway. Keanu Reeves plays a computer genetics specialist/biologist who has been developing a procedure to capture the electronics of the human brain on computer media that would allow it to be implanted into a robotic body. The ultimate clone, it would retain all the person’s thoughts, knowlege and memories. If it works, he could even alter what is saved. But, his system hasn’t been working, the transplanted minds go crazy and the robots have to be shut down. But he has an inspiration about what is causing it not to work, and just in time! He and his family are going on vacation and his wife, son and two daughters are killed in a car accident. Not surprisingly, he clones them and coerces his assistant into ‘borrowing’ the tools and equipment, setting them up in his basement (!) and cloning the bodies before re-inserting their personalities back in them. Unfortunately, there are only three cloning devices, so he randomly decides he won’t bring his youngest back. And of course, it doesn’t take long for cracks to appear and things to go horribly off kilter. It’s all part of the weak science, plot holes and sketchy plotting in general that plague this movie. Keanu is completely unconvincing as a mastermind biologist improvising his way into one increasingly dubious ajdustment after another, nor does he inspire sympathy or concern with his typical emotionless, dead pan delivery. You could drive a truck through the plot holes, inconsistancies and just plain poorly designed and written action and dialogue. His assistant was more lively, yet he and the attractive but underutilized Alice Eve do not shine. I did find some entertainment value in trying to determine which lie he creates to cover up his nefarious doings was the most ludicrious, but that couldn’t sustain me forever. If ever a movie was ripe for lampooning on Mystery Science Threatre 3000, this is it. If you like Keanu Reeves, I would suggest you rewatch “The Matrix” or even “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” The bottom line is: Don’t go see this movie! That is all!
Aquaman
Aquaman is exactly what you expected it to be. There is a lot of Jason Mimosa’s bare chest, tons of CGI and dazzling scenery, ludicrious dialogue and a million plot holes. It is hard to take Aquaman seriously though, and I think if the makers of the movie had been more tongue-in-cheek like Guardians of the Galaxy or even Ant Man, I would have enjoyed this movie better. I mean, I didn’t hate it, and I can think of worse ways to spend an afternoon. Thanks to my friend, Kristin, I got to see this movie for free, so the price was deifnitely right. Everyone is the movie seems to be trying their best, but it was all a bit too silly for me. I know I am being picky but how can creatures who rarely, if ever, come to the surface know how to speak AND read English? And it takes a whole mountain of suspension of belief for me to buy that somone has invented a way to turn water instantly into a deadly plamsa that can be fired like a bazooka. And how do thousands and thousands of ocean critters, much less five different tribes of subsurface denizens with huge cities, palaces and technological wonders really escape any notice from the surface dwellers? I am sure even the kids who were in the audience could predict several key events, including the ending. On top of everything else, this movie was almost 2 1/2 hours long! In the middle I found myself getting drowsy and dreaming of having sushi for dinner. Despite all of these shortcomings, I was oddly entertained by this movie. I wouldn’t want to see it again, wouldn’t want to own the DVD and I am certainly glad I didn’t have to pay to get in. I don’t want to stop you from going, and if you consider this movie as super hero eye candy lite, you will probably have a good time. A few people at our showing enjoyed it enough to clap, so it can’t be that bad, can it?
Mary Poppins Returns
Mary Poppins returns! I think we were all looking forward to this movie! And while I may have a few concerns, I still found it quite enjoyable. Lin-Manuel Miranda and Emily Blunt put in a great effort; they have great energy and voices and are very endearing. The special effects and costumes were dazzling. I even enjoyed the opening song. So how could a movie with all of this going for it, end up not quite getting there? “Mary Poppins Returns” really had several strikes against it before it even started. First of all, the orginal Mary Poppins was so well-loved and has been a classic ever since it first came out. So this movie had to live up to some pretty lofty expectations, and that’s a very high bar to reach. Next, the original movie had toe-tapping songs that you sang as you left the theatre. Who can forget the catchy earworm “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?” Or the joy of “Let’s Go Fly a Kite?” Or the sweet sadness of “Feed the Birds?” Third, Julie Anderews sparkled as Mary Poppins and had the singing range to hit those high, operatic notes. Last of all, the movie had heart. The newest reincarnation would probably find a more apprecative audience if we had never seen the original. But we did, and so we can’t help but judge this new one by comparing it to the older one. Sorry, but the newer one comes up short. I would say one of the biggest disappointments is the songs. I can’t remember one, even the one at the beginning that I liked. Yes, there was one about a book and another about going up with a balloon, but I don’t remember any of the lyrics or melodies. I found the grown up Michael Banks to be rather dim-witted and ineffective, you didn’t end up ‘rooting’ for Ben Whishaw like you did for David Tomlinson. The plot was not involving or even mildly tense. I love Meryl Streep, but she was utterly wasted as a cousin of Mary Poppins named Topsy whose presence was suppose to be a hommage, I suppose, to Ed Wynn’s “I Love to Laugh” in the original. I am not saying this is a bad movie, I think kids who haven’t seen the original will love it, and I did enjoy the performances of the two leads. There are also cameos by Dick Van Dyke and Angela Landsbury that I found delightful. I just wish I found the rest of the movie as charming.
Mary, Queen of Scots
This is the second “queenly” movie I have seen in as many weeks, the previous being “The Favorite.” Both movies depict an era of history that I am very fond of. I really wanted to love these movies, but they both let me down. ” The Favorite” was a way better movie, but I really don’t recommend either one. I found “Mary, Queen of Scots” to be very boring, which is not easy to do with all of the rich history that occured in this time period. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie do a pretty good job of depicting these two great, regal cousins. The historical events are basically accurate, with the exception of a very contrived meeting, that never occured! (the director and writer say there could have been a secret meeting. Not very likely in an era when monarchs were accompanied at all times and their courts knew where they were.) The meeting was given a rather modern and nonsensical cast and really begged the issue of the rift between the two queens. In the movie, Mary and Elizabeth have this secret meeting that leads Elizabeth once and for all to lock up her cousin, who shows a remarkable lack of acumen for a woman who otherwise was a worldly and intelligent monarch. There was of course alot more to the rift that ended with the execution of Mary Stewart! Mary became Queen of Scotland when she was six days old due to the death of her father, but spent her formative years in France, where she eventually married the Dauphin. When he died, she returned to rule Scotland as an adult – yet in the movie, she has a thick Scottish brogue! I won’t go into the details of her history with her cousin. Elizabeth, and her Scots nobility. It’s a very complex and murky story, with many plots and intrigues afoot, including some poor choices made by Mary herself. The movie depicts some of these, but in a confusing way that manages to make them seem uninteresting. The murder of her private secretary was dramatic and intense, as were several depictions of skirmishes. I think if you were not familiar with many of the events in this story, you might be confused as to the reasons for some occurances, like the murder of her husband, Lord Darnley. Just too much is not effectively explained or fleshed out. The costume designer might have done a better job with less leather and inaacurate hair stying. Look for a few surprises though, David Tennant and Guy Pearce are very effective as John Knox and Sir William Cecil. Both had make up that was so well-done I didn’t recongize either of them. Maybe they preferred it that way… I enjoyed Margot Robbie’s performance as Queen Elizabeth, but her time on screen was comparatively brief. If you know absolutely nothing about Mary, Queen of Scots, this movie will at least introduce you to the basic facts of her rule and her tragic death. Otherwise, you would probably be better served by reading a good biography.
The Favorite
This movie seemingly has everything I love in a good historical movie: great costumes, fantastic sets, stellar acting,interesting plot, intrigues and crisp writing. And yet, I can not give this movie a golden apple. Let’s start with what ‘s good. The three main actresses pull off an acting coup. Olivia Coleman is spot-on as dumpy nearsighted English Queen Anne, who lets her favorites dictate her political decisions. Rachel Weisz is equally compelling as the Queen’s long time favorite, Sarah Churchill (Winston’s grandmother), the Duchess of Marlborough. She schemes to stay in favor and control of the monarch, and is deliciously ruthless. Emma Stone shows surprising depth (to me anyway) as Sarah’s cousin, a down on her luck aristocrat who ditches her morals, but gains the Queen’s ear. Everything is very satirical and tongue in cheek, with delightful bitchy dialogue. The decadence of the last Stewart court and the conniving and back stabbing is delicous to watch. However, I didn’t enjoy the way the movie plays fast and loose with historical facts. Queen Anne is given to hedonistic escapades that probably have no basis in facts. I found that whole aspect of the film rather seedy and I am definitely no prude. Queen Anne is portrayed as something of an imbecile, which also doesn’t seem to be based in fact either. Many kings had their favorites and exchanged sex for favors, so I do not have a problem if that is what Queen Anne did, but I just don’t like the way her affairs are portrayed in the movie. The other thing lacking in this movie is someone to root for. There are definitely no heroes or heroines for that matter to root for. Excpt maybe the rabbits.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- …
- 44
- Next Page »