Tag: Helena Bonham Carter

Welcome to a Movie Roundup! A movie roundup features a few films that I didn’t feel like making full reviews for, but needed to get basic reviews out there for completionist reasons. It also helps me deal with my backlog. It may have a theme, and today’s theme is Mainstream 2018 (Part 1)! Basically, the popular movies I had missed, and need to really review, or else.

Being on a movie round up doesn’t mean a movie is inherently bad, or good, or meh. I can feature any rating on here! So don’t assume the worst! I will also just post the reviews in alphabetical order.

In the face of this movie, I expected the worst. I thought this movie had to be a typical January release, something similar to
10,000 BC. But alarmingly, it came out in September, and when I finally got to see the movie it mostly met my expectations. It was surprisingly not amazingly bad, just regularly bad.

Gross CGI landscapes to recreate the before time, and a pretty uninspired storyline about the bringing together a “dog” and a man. The other sad aspect of this movie is that people might watch it and go, “Oh, so that’s how it happened! Domestication!” and take this movie as fact. That would be a shame. And I don’t know if people actually say that, because I barely know people who have seen it, but this straw man stands in my mind. A forgettable film, like most dog films.

Waiting for Mufasa to show up takes forever.

When I first heard this title, I really assumed it was sort of a joke. I didn’t know it was based on a book of the title, or why it was called that, but it just felt off. I thought it would be some sort of exploitative film that was a comedy no one would watch, and hey, it feels good to be wrong. A romance more than anything, this is a film about an outsider being brought into the world of ridiculously rich Asian people in Singapore. So we get all of the wealth, luxury, and snide comments with some back stabbing.

On its whole, it could have been a forgettable romance film. But the lavish sets went all out to display a lifestyle most of us can only dream about, while also bringing in new cultural elements to American cinema. Having the lead be the mom from Fresh Off The Boat was great, and showed she has at least some range. The ending teared me up too. And damn it, it is great in general to see different people on our romance movies. Bring on this wave of Asian-American films, damn it.

Out of the three adjectives in the title, I’d prefer the middle one myself.

“More Mission Impossible? I thought we were done with those,” said no one really ever. Or at least said people who hadn’t been watching them. I will go on record and say the only one I didn’t get enjoyment out of was the second one, and that one has a lot of stranger things going on. I just didn’t see them until I was already an adult, so it took me awhile to appreciate them. Because lets face it, there isn’t another successful American action franchise that is going into this level of detail and craziness for its stunts. It wants Cruise to do most of the work.

He is never going to be the level of some of our older or past martial artist stars, with the long choreographed fight scenes, but its at least a step in the right direction. This film is still exciting, but overall, it feels uninspired. It just isn’t as good as the last two modern MI movies. The stunts aren’t as sexy, even if they have bigger overall stunts. It doesn’t fill me with as much awe, and the story line just gets excessive as it attempts to continually top itself. The ending also feels really clunky and I never really feel that sense of dread that it is going for. A good attempt at an action movie, I just expect a bit more now from the franchise.

The biggest stunts are helicopters? Eh, I’ve seen helicopters before.

I am a huge Ocean’s Trilogy fan, and a huge Steven Soderbergh fan, and so even if the director wasn’t really involved, I was hoping to love this one. Heck, the stars are there too, with a lot of big names.

I will say it feels gimmicky, and not equal, to just go the opposite direction and make it an all female cast. It doesn’t feel natural, just like an all male heist would be with the large numbers (which is why technically the two sequels had…one woman in on the heist). In the movie, it does seem to make a lot more sense, given just the nature of the crime and the talents they needed to pull it off, so that is the good news. The biggest issue overall is just that the movie feels forgettable when it finishes. No one person stands out in acting, and the various twists to show how it was pulled off are for the most part guessable, especially thanks to the title.

I still hope they can do more. Go for it. Just lets raise the stakes.

Yep, eight people, like most of the advertising, spoiling a twist.

Finally, a film people maybe thought initially was a joke. A high budgeted comedy (and slightly action?) movie, about people playing tag, that has gone on with very specific rules for decades, and one person who never, ever gets tagged. So many stars, so little time, and such a ridiculous concept (based loosely on a real story). I wanted to enjoy it and was intrigued by the trailer. But like a lot of modern comedies, I think it really just needs a group of people or slight inebriation to really fully enjoy.

I’d prefer a comedy I can find historical alone, and this is clearly one meant for you to enjoy with your own group of friends, which is fine, but limited. Again, with a large cast, no one really feels like a standout, and some people seem to be doing the same sorts of character they are always type casted into. The ending also went a really strange place. Unexpected, sure, but something that feels almost like a complete genre switch.

Mainstream movies may be a broad title, especially when you compare them to the other quick themes I put together, but hey, its my themes suck it. I originally would have done genre, but too many films are multi-genre that I didn’t want to deal with that hassle.

Welcome to a Movie Roundup! A movie roundup features a few films that I didn’t feel like making full reviews for, but needed to get basic reviews out there for completionist reasons. It also helps me deal with my backlog. It may have a theme, and today’s theme is Animated 2018! Basically, all of the animated movies of 2018 that didn’t get their own review.

Being on a movie round up doesn’t mean a movie is inherently bad, or good, or meh. I can feature any rating on here! So don’t assume the worst! I will also just post the reviews in alphabetical order.

First up is the only third film in a franchise in the group, but there are a few unnecessary sequels as well. And in terms of unnecessary things, this is near the top. This film doesn’t relaly have any redeeming qualities. It is very clear right from the get go what a twist would be, so instead of milking it, they give it away early as well.

The real twist is tricking you to give money for this terrible, terrible movie. The ending features a several minute long dance battle, from various artists, and then an even longer Macarena dance party. Yes, that Macarena. Were they paid to have it featured so prominently, has it been too long outside of our pop culture sphere? It seriously had to milk this scene so hard, as each main character needed to be shown doing the dance, and then group shots, and then tons of tourists, and every person everywhere, with extreme body movements to highlight their awkward appearances. It was one of the worst endings of a movie this year, so well done Hotel Transylvania 3. Please stop now.

Next up is a sequel people have actually been wanting forever, and Brad Bird said only when he had a worthy script, and apparently that meant 14 years later. Real time, not the movie time, as it takes place right after the first movie. And I honestly thought he should have waited longer. This film just feels so uninspired by me. I really didn’t need to see moments after they finished the first film, leaving me at the same exact point except we have a baby with changing every power nonsense. I could have used years later, more developed.

This plot feels too similar to the first. Still people are afraid of supers, but instead of the man going out to fight, its now the lady. The plot twist was once again obvious, so it didn’t do much for me. In 2004, Superhero movies were shit, so The Incredibles stood out as a beacon of hope for things to come. Now Superhero films have been able to elevate their game, bring a whole lot more exciting things, and this film more or less stayed the same. My mind checked out by the end, and it felt like too little too late.

This sequel is a lot sooner after the first film, to maximize off of its success. However, this felt like a rushed piece of movie that relied on current style jokes only to work, which is going to doom it in the long run. This movie is by Disney, who wanted to flex their expansive collection and throw in all of the princesses and more in an internet hub world to make people giddy, almost as counter to Ready Player One , another nostalgia heavy film. Except this one combines nostolgia with extremely current, so we get memes, we get current popular websites, and it is going to do what many modern comedies do: fade into obscurity in a few years.

It is still nice to look at, and the ending is totally weird, but honestly, they made Ralph into such a shit in this movie. In the first film, he was tired of being a bad guy, who tried to do the right thing, but from his good intentions some bad still happened. In this film, he becomes selfish and straight up almost gaslighting Penelope into staying, and going out of his way to be a dick, whcih causes the problems. He felt like an extreme nice guy. “I did all of this for you, and now you want to leave!? Love me!” These are not the traits to be highlighting in our animated heroes, even if he learns his lesson. He still needed to not be such a dick.

This movie is an awkward one, as it had a small release, not a big studio, and looked like absolute shit. Letting us know it is based on a true dog from World War I doesn’t make this feel any less uncomfortable the whole time. In highlighting what a dog did, with most likely extreme examples that might not have happened, we downplay the hell out of actual soldiers in the war who died. I don’t know if anyone is still alive from that war, but I know they would definitely not like this movie iteration.

It was a terrible war, and not saying we can’t make kid versions about the war. But it didn’t do a good job of really informing the details of the war, so it isn’t really educational. Instead, it is a super pup movie, who has a soldier friend, who saves everybody. It is so soft and basic it just feels like a waste of time. Cool, at least one dog in a war was given the title of sergeant. Please don’t trivialize the war at the same time.

For those of you who did not see Gnomeo and Juliet (which I will assume is everybody), it was lawn gnomes, but the Romeo and Juliet story line. And for whatever reason, they got Elton John on board with it, and a lot of his hits were either background, or the tune of his songs with different lyrics. It was uncomfortable. So yeah, let’s do a sequel. But a different story. Completely unrelated, except also being British in nature.

Now, if you are like me, you assumed okay, new story, new hero and will just be gnomes. But no, they think we really like the pair from the previous movie and it is still really about them, with also a mystery and extra characters. And despite the first being a big movie about their romance and getting together, this one is also about how Gnomeo is a shitbag who won’t let his woman do her own things, so he has to be insecure and they should not be a couple. More bad things for kids, really. Also, what the fuck is this Shelock plot line. I haven’t seen Homes & Watson yet, but this has got to be the worst year for that poor detective in hundreds of years. Straight up I will let you know, at some point, Watson is found to be part of the bad guy plot as well, because they want something new. Get out of here.

Oh yeah, and still, Elton John music.

This is one of those movies I had completely dismissed before watching it. It looked like an Illumination movie, and they are generally godawful always. But it isn’t that! It is Warner Bros, who is known for Lego Movies and Storks (and that’s it right now). Knowing Storks, I wasn’t excited either. But strangely enough, Smallfoot had a lot going on for it. It had pretty good lead acting and some fun characters. It dealt with a serious topic about dealing with religious doctrination, from many angles. It didn’t say blindly follow, or screw all of it and get rid of it. There were layers to the plot.

I didn’t know it had songs in it either, so when they started I was a bit turned off, but for the most part they are really great. Even when one had to take the riff from Under Pressure, it completely ran with the premise and made it into something wonderful. Shit, the music was dope. I laughed. Now the ending did have a lot of problems, it got clunky and a bit off. But for the most part, Smallfoot is a solid film and better than most of the animated films this year. I’m looking at you, Disney and Pixar.

And finally, we have a movie that came in a summer and I actually heard a lot of good things about. I heard it was hilarious. I heard I didn’t need to watch the show to like. I watched the first Teen Titans a few times, and it seemed quality. The Go version looked like, and maybe even smelled like trash. And it turns out, their movie seems to go with my preconceptions of the show.

Let’s make this clear. I didn’t laugh once. It had a few fart and potty jokes in it. It had a group of five people but it could not at all let them all be the stars, despite it being a team film. Clearly, a movie about Robin wanting a movie about himself will be more about him. Fine. But the other four are barely used. Cyborg is used a lot more, then Beast Boy, and our girls are rarely mentioned or get a line it seems. It is also a surprise musical, with some tunes being nice.

But what makes this movie insufferable is its over reliance on meta humor and current meme standards. We get it. Its a movie about making a super hero movies. We got superheroes in it, and they are hilarious. It just went all these terrible directions and never felt like something I would ever want to watch. It is like an idea someone made on an internet message board, and for whatever reason, a studio executive was drunk and actually listened to it. Yeah, a movie about making movies. But fart humor. And not showcasing all of the members of the team. And repeated jokes. Yes. God awful.

Overall, I am not surprised that three of these films got the lowest rating. I am surprised at how much I disliked Teen Titans though, could never imagine that poor of a film. I figured Sgt. Stubb would have been worse. I am surprised at the mediocrity from our big studios and how good Smallfoot ended up being.

Some of these films will make the worst of the year list, none will make the best. If you wanted quality animated films from this year, from America, check out Isle of Dogs and Spider-Man: Into The Spiderverse.

Let’s take a time machine back six years ago. The world was different, because not everything was in 3D. Only a few films tried out 3D, thanks to Avatar being the cash cow and visually stunning film that it was. This is when people still thought 3D was actually kind of cool if done right.

Then Alice in Wonderland came out, and it made a shit ton of money. Why did everyone rush to see it? Well, I guess Johnny Depp was a bigger deal six years ago, sure. But because it was released in 3D, so everyone went to see it thinking it would be as pretty as Avatar. It wasn’t.

And say what you will about the plot of Avatar, its story was miles better than the pile of refuse that they gave us with Alice in Wonderland. You would think making it into a bad story would be impossible, given the book. But no, instead they made a sequel to the original Alice in Wonderland, setting this one many years later, with Alice returning to Wonderland with a whole mess of new and awkwardly similar problems. It gave me problems, most of all calling the movie Alice in Wonderland, when it was a sequel to Alice in Wonderland. That is confusing.

But hey, Disney is on a live action kick. So they figured, let’s do a sequel. Alice Through The Looking Glass. This one will probably no be based on the book either, since it is a sequel to the surprise sequel. So who knows what they will fill it with hoping to be edgy. Let’s just say I am going in assuming the worst here, and that is based on a lot of precedent.

Clay? Rust? Red lava? Earthy minerals? Who cares, I am barely a geologist anyways.

The sequel takes place years after the original, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now a free girl, roaming the seas the captain of her own sailing vessel like her dad. She is exploring the new world and making trade agreements! It is actually quite fun. Unfortunately, when she gets back she is in a pickle. Hamish (Leo Bill), the man she turned down now runs the company. Her mom (Lindsay Duncan) has traded away the bill of her house for money, and the only way to get it back is for Alice to give up her boat and take a respectable job for a woman.

So, in the chaos, she runs through a mirror, following Absolem the butterfly (Alan Rickman) and returns to Wonderland! But things have changed. The entire gang is still friends, but the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is now the Sad Hatter. He believes his family, killed by the Jabberwocky a long time ago. It is obvious what Alice must do. If you thought look for his family, you were wrong. No, she clearly should go back in time, save them from the Jabberwocky, and bring them to the present to make him feel better. Yeah. That.

But time is a person (Sacha Baron Cohen). And grabbing the Chronosphere can cause a lot of issues. But she does it anyways, because friendship and sets off on a journey to the past to fuck shit up.

The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and White Queen (Anne Hathaway) return, Leilah de Meza with and Amelia Crouch playing their past selves. Rhys Ifans plays the Mad Hatter’s dad and Ed Speleers are regular unimportant dude.

Also returning, the voices of Tweedledee / Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), Bayard (Timothy Spall), Thackery (Paul Whitehouse), Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), Mallymkun (Barbara Windsor), McTwisp (Michael Sheen), and introducing Wilkins (Matt Vogel), a robot.

Time is a lot of things, and you will hear every last time pun I do decree!

First of all, Eye in the Sky is Alan Rickman’s real last film. This one is just voice work, and I swear, he maybe had three lines and no close ups. This does not get to count as his final film, I won’t allow it.

As for the actual movie, if you missed it this one deals with TIME TRAVEL. Time Travel is a scary subject matter. It is powerful and can make or break a movie depending on how it is adapted. I am not going to argue one theory of time travel is better than any other, because that doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that a film is consistent with their version of time travel. Alice Through The Looking Glass cares not at all, changing the rules on a whim, and makes an incredible hard to follow film without a satisfying reason for making it overly complicated.

This line might be a slight spoiler, because I just want to explain their time travel. Alice finds out that no matter what she does, she can not change the past, the events still occur. That is the time travel they have set up. Until later on in the film, a character is totally able to change the past. Fuck.

Alice goes back in time to three different locations. Why? Because the oceans of time are chaotic and once she learns information, she tries to go to a different time line to change different things. The plot is moved forward by consistently bad decisions from Alice, whom is supposed to be a strong smart female lead. Not only that, because Alice seems to make the same bad decisions, her actions feel repetitive and the films seems to drag when there are easy solutions everywhere.

The ending is an incredible mess. Wonderland is falling apart because of two separate events that somehow produce the same results. But it doesn’t make sense for them to do the same thing. I will try and explain it out without spoilers.

I hope you passed algebra.

For most of the film, Problem A is happening thanks to Alice and the world is slowly falling apart. Much later in the film, Problem B, a completely different problem occurs and actually sets about the end of the world. Problem A is seemingly forgotten about. However, once Problem A is “solved”, thanks to our protagonist remembering it, it somehow undoes all of the damage of Problem B. The issue with that is there is no justification whatsoever that it should work like that. There are no mentions earlier on that if Problem B happens, it can be fixed by X. On top of that, there was no reason for Problem A to even continue late in the film, except for the fact that Alice becomes incompetent.

Finally, Alice is seen as a strong, independent woman, which is mostly true in the real world scenes where she is chased by pirates, but they reduce her to a bumbling fool in Wonderland. All of her positive traits seemingly vanish just to move the plot forward. On its own, I guess it is okay for a character to be stupid, sure.

The real issue here is that her character does stupid things, but she is still being lauded as a smart and capable heroine the entire film. To me, that seems almost more dangerous than just having a weak lead. What we need in films are actual strong female characters, not weak ones that they tell us are strong with us supposed to them at their word.

This is a bad movie and one I cannot believe was green-light by Disney. The 3D is pointless, the visuals are only great in a few places, the acting is so-so. The plot is a mess, breaks its rules (which breaks story telling rules and shouldn’t be seen as a compliment to the Madness of Wonderland), and most of the events happen thanks to stupidity and not for good plot reasons. The only thing I enjoyed was the excessive time puns and Cohen as Time.

Alright, fine. Disney is going full money grab. Disney Princess line is a success. Frozen has made multiple billions from sales and merchandise. They have bought Marvel and Star Wars. They want all the money on the planet, that is the only way to describe them right now.

Because if they keep making live action movies of their animated classics, they get to print even more stacks of cash out, keep up any copyrights they have (totally researched argument, this could be a false statement), and re design the character as see fit. After all, most of the early princesses are pretty passive people and terrible role models for women. They can make all of these women stronger independent ladies. They can make the movies more exciting or just tell a better story.

The first attempt was Maleficent, which I thought was terrible. The changes they made (all of it) were terrible, and instead of getting a bamf villain, we got a misunderstood fairy who spent a third of the movie just watching a girl grow up. We are getting Beauty and the Beast which I already have issues with casting wise, but I will tease and not talk about it until that review comes out in 2016 or whenever.

So now we have Cinderella, which for the most part, looks to be the exact same story. Maybe some more details, but exactly the same story with all of the same songs. Wait, what, no songs?

We are just getting fancy dancing? WHO WILL SERENADE ME?

Ah little Ella (Lily James). Living on her slightly big house with servants and shit. A loving family. Her dad (Ben Chaplin) is a merchant w ho goes on trips a lot, leaving her with just her mother. Did I say mother? Just kidding. She died. She told her to always be good and nice to people, because that was her gift.

Eventually the dad was feeling a bit lonely and he also wanted to be nice. So he heard about a lady who needed help, who was also now a Widow with two daughters. He wanted to marry her and move them in so that Ella would have friends and a family again.

Hah. Just kidding. New mother is a bitch (Cate Blanchett). New sisters are whiny bitches (Sophie McShera, Holliday Grainger). And of course her dad kicks the bucket too while he is out on a trip. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.

So they are poor now. They have to let go all their workers leaving just poor old Ella to make the food, clean the dishes, and help her “family” have some sort of luxury. She is too gosh darned nice.

So when the local Prince (Richard Madden) is going to have a ball to find a wife before the King (Derek Jacobi) croaks. Of course Ella can’t go because of bitches. Then we have a fairy godmother (Helena Bonham Carter), transformations, glass slippers, running, big search, and maybe some more shenanigans you don’t even know about.

Also with Stellan Skarsgård as a Duke and Nonso Anozie as a captain! Wait, no, his name is officially Captain it looks like.

Yep, none of them are blonde, therefore they are all evil.

It turns out, Cinderella doesn’t have a lot going on with its plot. I mean, in its basic form, girl is living with step family, doesn’t get to have fun. Some magic happens, she gets to have fun, and a Prince saves her and they live happily ever after. Not a whole lot going on for Ella. She just cleans a lot and is really nice. Fuck, so many times watching the movie, I was just thinking that she should just lock her fucking house doors when they go out to town and be done with it all.

But her niceness meant she just had to get shit on for years or months or however long the time line happened? Man. What a beta.

Okay, boring character aside. Boring plot aside. They don’t really change anything at all from a story sixty five years ago. They have a bit more back story and some more late game scheming, but literally nothing new and so it isn’t a surprise.

The only people who seem to have any amount of personality are the bad guys!

But despite all of it, is is indeed a pretty movie. Visually stunning, outside of one terrible CGI scene involving the pumpkin to carriage (it was gross and the humans looked fake during it), it was just an incredibly beautiful film. They really did great work in the costume and make up department, so you can expect an Oscar nomination there. Overall though, just too much filler and time wasting, especially at the ball.

Also, I feel uncomfortable with Skarsgård having a biggish role in a PG movie after seeing Nymphomaniac.

Sync up your William Tell Overture Finale folks, it’s The Lone Ranger time.

Although I never listened to the original radio series, or watched the TV series, or other movies, The Lone Ranger himself is pretty ingrained in American Pop Culture. A hero to the old American West, and a franchise that Jerry Bruckheimer has decided to take under his wing. After all, if it proves to be a success, he could release a new Ranger movie every three years, similar to his current Pirates of the Caribbean trek. Just think of how much money Johnny Depp will make from both franchises, too.

If explosions were dollar bills…

In Colby, Texas, the great American Railroad is coming through, bringing prosperity and happiness to the small town. Their goal is to connect the East with the West. John Reid (Armie Hammer), a district attorney from the big cities, is returning to his hometown to reconnect with his brother and brother’s wife, Rebecca (Ruth Wislon).

What poor John did not know, is that also on that train was famed bandit cannibal Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), who is finally going to be hanged for his crime. There is also this Indian named Tonto (Johnny Depp), but he is a bit more mysterious. After a train robbery, Butch is back on the run, and it is up to John Reid, his brother, and a gang of lawmen to bring him back for justice.

Until something goes wrong. Terribly, deadly wrong. Somehow, John is saved, and Tonto explains to him that he is a spirit walker, who cannot be killed according to his beliefs. Tonto also wants to bring Butch to justice, so they team up to right wrongs and save the day! Speaking of trains, Tom Wilkinson plays Cole, the railroad tycoon, and Helena Bonham Carter a bordello mistress. Fun fact, this is the first time Carter and Depp have been in a film together that was not directed by Tim Burton.

It is also the first time Depp has worked with this horse.

After watching The Lone Ranger, I really just want to listen to famous, old classical music. Major props to Hans Zimmer for rocking out another great movie soundtrack, something I don’t bring up a lot in my reviews.

I will start with the negatives first. This movie is 149 minutes long. What! A lot of the film is set up, in order to introduce us to the character before he dons the mask, a little bit about Tonto, and a whole lot about his brother and his old town. It is necessary, I guess, but it could have easily been shortened. The film uses the method of unreliable narrator, as a much older Tonto is telling the story on how he first met John. The idea itself is a neat one (and allows for more crazy situations) but the method of delivery just feels hokey to me.

Thankfully, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Hammer and Depp have great chemistry. Tonto is not just a secondary character but an equally important one. They have the appropriate throw backs to the original series while also doing their own thing.

But the best part of the movie is by far the climactic train ending. The final chase is incredibly long, but so meticulously planned and detailed that it was hard to stop smiling the entire time. The director had many gorgeous shots of the landscape, like a classic western, including setting parts of it in the Monument Valley as a different type of throwback.

The movie will also give you plenty of screen time with Armie Hammer, who is currently rumored to be the new Ant-Man or Dr. Strange, upcoming heroes/movies Phase 3 of the Marvel Universe.

Although this film has had many negative reviews, I’d say give it a chance. Especially if you have three hours (movie and preview) to waste on these hot summer nights.

“What the hell is this shit? It is 2013 and you are just now reviewing the Best Picture winner from 2010? No one cares anymore! We already know its good!”

I have the meanest readers some times. Yes, I am a bit embarrassed that I am just now reviewing The King’s Speech. I just kept putting it off. I did see it a long time ago, but before I reviewed it, I felt like I should probably…you know…re watch it on Blu-Ray. Yeah, technology!

Enough excuses.

After all, did King George VI ever make excuses? All the time? Well damn.

Before King George VI was King George VI (Colin Firth), he was just the son of King George V (Michael Gambon). His older brother, King Edward VII (Guy Pearce) (“Hey, why is everyone a King?” Shhh) is set to be King before him, which is great, because George6 has a problem.

He sucks at talking. He has a terribad stutter, and it is frankly down right embarrassing. He is royalty, and he muffles all of his words! No one can take him seriously if he cannot give a simple command. They tried everything, including throwing money at the problem, but nothing seems to work.

So his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) decides, against his knowledge, to go off the beaten path to look for help. He has basically given up hope and doesn’t care anymore. He would just rather hide instead. As it is with movies, the man she finds is named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and quite unconventional. He wants to get into psychology, and determine why people may stutter. That is personal shit, a bit too personal for a potential king.

OH NO. CERTAIN HISTORICAL EVENTS HAPPEN AND KING GEORGE VI BECOMES KING GEORGE VI. Fuck. Now he has to talk. He really needs to fix dat stutter and fast. But can he? Can he do it?

Just like any problem, all the king really needed was helpful aides.

There is a reason this movie won Best Picture, and it lies almost 100% with Colin Firth, who also won Best Actor. I know I’ve used this phrase before, but it is really the only thing fitting of this situation. Colin Firth acted the fuck out of this role, and there is no touching him in this movie. Stuttering is not too hard to pull off, if you want to mock a person and be an asshole. But to pull off I guess a “sincere” stutter, throughout an entire movie? And have it all look completely real and natural? Damn, maybe he just has a strong jaw and tongue! It is just insane how great he is at this role.

I tried to tip my movie after I saw it because I had such a great time. Oh yeah.

Everyone else is good too, notably Mr. Rush, as always. Not sure why Helena was nominated for her role, she is barely in this movie. But hey, congrats to her a anyways!

The story itself is not one I can see myself watching again and again, after all, there are some boring parts. But for the topic at hand, it made a seemingly “Who Gives A Fuck?” topic a star experience and helped everyone care about a now dead British King.

Audiences rejoice! There is finally a Les Miserables movie! Alright, so personally I haven’t been waiting a long time, just a year max. I mostly was excited about the cast! I like musicals, but never really heard the music in this one. I did give the 25th Anniversary soundtrack a listen a few times, just to be familiar with the songs, but I had no idea what was happening plot wise.

But apparently Hugh Jackman gets to sport a killer beard.

The plot? It is anything but simple. The main plot line is about Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), Prisoner 24601, getting paroled after 19 years in a post revolution France. What did he do? Stole a bit of bread. Sucks. Either way, he breaks the parole after turning his life around for God, hoping to be a better man. But breaking the parole is a another crime, meaning he must be on the run his whole life from Officer Javert (Russell Crowe) who follows the law to the letter, regardless of circumstances.

There are however many more plotlines, including the fall of a factory worker, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), into prostitution, in order to provide money for her daughter Cosette (eventually Amanda Seyfried). Well, Jean Valjean agrees to look after the daughter, but has to remain on the run. Eventually it is the 1832 Paris Uprising, which adds in a love story between Cosette, Marius (Eddie Redmayne), a freedom fighter, and Eponine (Samantha Barks). Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter provide comic relief as innkeepers/beggers, and Aaron Tveit as the leader of the student revolution.

Eddie Redmayne. Turns out he has a decent singing voice, despite not even knowing who the heck he was before this movie.

Alright, so I rushed through the plot to talk about the actual movie. Interestingly enough, the music in the movie was not done off set with the actors miming like most musicals, but sung during the shoots and recorded that way. You know, like an actual theatrical musical! It really gave the film a bit more of a raw emotional feel to it. What was more impressive in that department when they had really really long shots, so you knew that they just sang the entire song in one go. When Hathaway dreamed that dream, I cried due to the shear emotion in that song and scene.

A lot of bad talk has been given to Russell Crowe, who is obviously not a Broadway caliber singer, but I thought his unpolished voice brought a lot of personality into his role, and he felt a bit more real because of it.

But this was Jackman’s movie to win or lose, and he put on quite a performance, that sly dog. From the bearded warrior, to a mayor, to a runaway, to a freedom fighter, he is everywhere, and his performance was phenomenal.

If I had one major complaint, it would be that the ending felt a little bit hokey to me. Just a bit, still made me cry though.

Dark Shadows!…Did anyone go see this film in theaters? I mean really? I don’t think I heard a single person thinking “Yes! Time to watch a remake of a 60s Soap Opera!”

Not saying that it was a bad decision to turn Dark Shadows into a movie. First off, I’ve actually seen that show. Like, maybe up to 20 episodes. Who cares if it has over a thousand? Shut up. It was eerie when I was a kid. Secondly, 21 Jump Street just happened. It was a movie version of an older TV show, changed the genre, and was awesome. So why not Dark Shadows?

Oh yeah. Erm.

The Collins family moved to New England from Britain way back in the 1700s, and pretty much founded their own town with their richness, Collinsport. Port, yes, because they do fishing business and continued to grow their fortune. Their son, Barnabus (Johnny Depp) was falling in love with a maid, Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), but the parents would not allow it. Then the parents were killed. Whoops. Turns out Angelique is a witch, and got pissed off. Didn’t stop Barnabus from falling in love with another woman, who ended up killing herself under a curse. Barnabus tries to kill himself, but whoops, he’s now a vampire because Angelique is a mean mean person, and then becomes imprisoned for the next 200 years.

Hey look, the 1970s. Collinsport is now barely Collins owned territory. The house in shambles, the fortune all mostly gone and shit. Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer) is now the head of the house, and has a 15 year old daughter Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz). Elizabeth’s brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller) is an asshole, single father after the wife drowned, with a younger son David (Guilliver McGrath). He is kind of messed up, so they have a psychiatrist there, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helan Bonham Carter). Oh yeah, also a housekeeper Willie (Jackie Earle Haley) who has to work too hard for one guy.

Either way, they need a governess for David, and mysterious Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote) answers the call.

BUT WHO CARES, BARNABUS RETURNS. Joins the family, wants to get their business back up, restore the name, and woo Victoria. But witches. And he is a vampire. Oh man, shenanigans.

Dem eyes.

So, from what I can tell, this movie is a lot like the show in many ways. No one really cared about the show too much until Barnabus joined the cast, like 200 episodes in, then it became a huge hit. So much like the show, Victoria was the main character early on, after all the back story, until Barnabus came back, and then she only had a few scenes. With Barnabus, and not too many lines. Bugged me.

Overall, I found the entire movie to be too ridiculous, so maybe that is keeping itself true to its soap opera roots? But found it hard to get in to. It really didn’t feel like Dark Shadows, due to its attempt to be a big comedy. I almost think this would have been better received if it tried again to be its own story that had nothing to do with Dark Shadows characters/names/pseudo-plots.

I thought Helena was aweful in the film, and Jonny Lee Miller was pointless as well. My favorite casting choice was probably Haley as the groundskeeper, he did make me laugh.

But overall, this just didn’t feel entertaining to me, and felt like every other recent Burton/Depp movie.

I personally feel a bit British just saying the title of this movie.

Conversations With Other Women.

It feels so proper, and pretensions.

Yet at the same time, so adulterous.

While also potentially having a lot of talking.

And by that I mean tons of talking. That is all the movie is! But good dialogue is good.

Aaron Eckhart is at his sister’s wedding. He finds Helena Bonham Carter. one of the bridesmaids, and she is British!

Now is good time to note that this movie is “split screened” with a left and right side. Most of the time, each camera is focused on both of their faces. They happen to be near each other the whole movie too, so its good for their conversations.

They also have some sex that night, despite the fact that she has a husband (Ex husband) and two kids in London. He is in a lot of different relationships, random ones, even young girls. But maybe they also knew each other in this past and this is fate?

Oh hey, and Olivia Wilde has a role as drunk bridesmaid, and Thomas Lennon as weird video camera guy. And some quick flashbacks of the man and woman, played by different people in their yuoth.

What’s that? You said you wanted an example?

Well, as expected, this movie has a lot of dialogue. Like, aside from some strategic awkward silence, it is mostly a night long conversation with the two leads. Not a whole of lot of women, unless you consider Helena to be the other woman.

But was it interesting? Well kind of. But also slow.

I mean hey, give it a shot if you like banter.

Apparently Toast is actually a biography movie for Nigel Slater, which is some British food dude. I don’t think I have heard of him, but thats because I am not a food dude?

Maybe someone here knows who this man is?!

So mysterious.

So, this goes over Nigel’s early life. When he is a kid and played by Oscar Kennedy, and he loves the idea of food. Like cheeses. Crazy right? But his mom can’t cook! She can really only cook Toast good, and apparently you will always remember who gave you your first piece of amazing toast. This could be a British thing. But she ends up dying because of something. So him and his dad are sad (Ken Stott). They also a richer family, or upper class. But still, cooking sucks.

The dad ends up hiring Helena Bonham Carter, a married woman to clean their house for them. She does it pretty sensually too. Partially because she is not his mom, and partially because she is lower class (or at least that is what it looks like as a pouty kid). Eventually she leaves her husband and moves with them to a new house, far from the city. Oh, and bonus fact, she can cook damn well.

FLASH FORWARD. And by that I mean, this movie is 90~ minutes long, and after about 60 minutes, the kid is now 16 or 17. Now he is Freddie Highmore. In the credits, he is Nigel. While Oscar Kennedy is “Young Nigel”. Despite the fact that he is in 2/3 of the film. I think that is dumb.

Anyways. He still loves food. He even takes home ec instead of shop. WHAT. A GIRL. He then tries to become a great cook. Why? So his dad will see no reason to keep his new wife. Yes. His hatred for her, because of her being a lesser class and not his actual mom drives his whole life. He thinks if he can out cook her, she will leave. Yes. Great strategy.

I just wanna put my face in all of that cream.

At this point I feel like I can spoil what happens? Because it is a dudes life and stuff. Eventually the dad dies, so it is just Freddie and Helena. And then he leaves home. He goes on to start his life. He leaves Helena alone in their house, despite her begging to stay. He gets a job. I think the moral of the story is that despite his extreme prejudices towards that woman, he wouldn’t be who he was today with out her?

If you watch this movie, you will hate the main character. He is never appealing. He is a jerkface.

The story is interesting. And the acting is decent. But this movie just takes so long to get to the “important plot points” in the last half hour. I think if it would have been brought up earlier, it would have been a lot more interesting. I spent the first 2/3 wondering what the point was. Then of course by the end realized it was a real dudes story. Guess that is why it wasn’t too exciting?