Tag: Ken Stott

The Dig is the next of these big movies that Netflix plans on releasing weekly. The one I very recently did before this was The White Tiger, and there was also Pieces of a Woman, and damn it Netflix. Where are the shit films?

Well, despite this being an intro, I can technically say this is the shittiest new to Netflix film this year that I have seen, but the film is not inherently shit. One of those strange situations.

I shouldn’t have to wait for The Kissing Booth 3 to get something potentially bad though. Maybe they are hiding the bad movies from me. Yes. That must be it.

Picture: A woman and her hole. 

In 1939, Edith Pretty (Carey Mulligan) is wealthy and owns a good chunk of land in Great Britain. And she is a widow. And on her land are a few interesting mounds that she believed, along with her late husband, to maybe hold some great old architecture or burial site. And now that he is gone so early and tragically, she wants to hurry and carry out a dig of the site to find out if there is anything down there.

She wants to hire a guy known by reputation and not by official degrees, Basil Brown (Ralph Fiennes) to survey and dig her land, and apparently at a higher than normal rate, because he is allegedly a great archaeologist.

And now it becomes a meticulous race to dig. Racing to finish before WWII gets bigger. Racing to finish before the British government decides to take the find for themselves. Racing to finish before they get old and just die, I guess.

Also there are subplots. And starring Johnny Flynn, Lily James, Ben Chaplin, and Ken Stott.

Picture: A dirty old man creeping on a young widow. Surprise! The Dig is a true story, and it is really just a specific time frame bio of Basil Brown, which is most certainly an Archaeologist whom you have never heard about before. Which I guess can be a reason for the movie to exist.

Apparently in the area he was known as being amazing, and they showed that in one scene because he was sought after. But due to his lack of credentials, it took awhile, even for things he helped dig up and discover, to mention his name as part of it.

And well. Sure, okay. It is an okay story. It has fine acting done from the two leads. But this is a film that also seems to need the sub plots purely to pad the length of time of this movie, to give us more characters to care a bit about. But honestly, a non-real love triangle, because of a character hiding their gayness, and someone being sent off to fight in the war, and all of that, have nothing to do with our main two characters. They are just other people on the dig. Are they even real? I forget if the end told me that. It just feels so indifferent to the story.

It is good for side characters to have small arcs and growth as well, and not just be two dimensional. But these stories took away from the main story, which admittingly could not stand on its own legs. It needed more. Or, maybe, it just needed a lot less, with a shorter run time.

2 out of 4.

I think 100 Streets was made completely as a joke. At some point in the review, I will get into why the whole concept is pointless, or at least it is in regards to the titles.

But if you have Idris Elba in a movie, you are totally not allowed to talk about streets.

Quite famously, one of the more recent authors of the 007 books, Anthony Horowitz, said that Elba was “Too Street” to play James Bond in a movie, giving the world confusion, rage, and quite apparent calls of racism.

So that is reason one why this movie is probably a joke, and one I am just starting to get.

Elba is so street, he is on a balcony above the street. With a gun of course. Typical, streety, Elba.

The plot of 100 streets is about the lives of three households, all within 100 streets of each other in London. Let’s start with the bigger stars. Max (Idris Elba) is a retired Rugby player, captain of a team, very famous in London and rich. He has a wife, Emily (Gemma Arterton), and two kids, but they are currently separated. So he lives alone. He has a drug problem and is focused too much on things outside of the family. So she is seeing someone else and annoyed at his existence.

We also have George (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his wife Kathy (Kierston Wareing), who are struggling. They are poor, kind of. George is a nice guy, he sings, he drives a cab, he coaches. They are looking to add a kid into his life, but some stuff in George’s pass come up, and also he accidentally kills someone.

And finally, we have Kingsley (Franz Drameh), a drug dealer who has been arrested. He has a pregnant girlfriend and lives with his mom, but he is trying to better his life and considers himself an urban poet.

And this is their story, with parts interconnected, including other people who connect their lives. People like Ken Stott, Ryan Gage, Tom Cullen, and Ashley Thomas.

This would be sexier if she was with her husband, Elba, known gangster and criminal.

How big is London? I know it is a giant city, tons of people, one of the biggest business areas in the world. But if I had to define it by its number of streets in one direction, is it ever more than 100? I don’t know, I can’t tell. I know NYC probably isn’t bigger than 100 streets in a direction. Something like Houston would be, but it is sprawling outwards and giant.

Either way, 100 streets is a giant amount of distance, so it might as well be about three random groups of people who occasionally run into each other. A normal multi plot film. If it was 15 streets, maybe they’d have something, but I still think that is a big chunk in a residential area.

As for the movie, it is overly dramatic and incredibly uninteresting. There can be sad moments, slightly chaotic moments, but it is just so hard to care about any of these people. We can care a bit about Kingsley and his plot line, as he is the guy super down in the dumps, basically living on the streets and screwed. And as soon as he finds a way to better his life, his own karma comes up and bites him in his ass.

The plot lines never really feel like they conclude. They are just moments in a few lives, and they aren’t great moments. A lot of drama, some okay moments, and a lot of “Who gives a fuck?”

1 out of 4.

Last time, when I reviewed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I didn’t get to see it in the 48 FPS 3D version until about a week later. But this time, times are a changing, and I can talk a bit about that too. I ended up liking the super detailed high frame rate for the first film, so I am of course excited to see right away this time.

But I am also stoked for a second reason. Now I don’t have to watch The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug twice within a week in theaters. I don’t care how good it is. Ain’t got time or money for that now. I don’t like to watch these LOTR movies a lot anyways. Once in theaters, and once eventually an extended version.

This picture does not do justice to how BAMF he actually looked on screen, 3D, 48 fps.

Plot outlines for this seems dumb. I assume everyone knows the story?

This movie starts out with Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen), and the Dwarven friends (Ricahrd Armitage, Ken Stott, and more) on the run, orcs still chasing them. Some stuff happens, and Gandalf has to leave again to go figure out some necromancer stuff.

This causes the gang to get in lots of trouble. Trouble with spiders, and then the wood elves (Where we meet Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), who totally gets the hots for a Dwarf. Odd!). Some escapes happen, they eventually get to Laketown, meet Bard (Luke Evans), sort of help an uprising, and get their way to the mountain! After all, they only have so much time to get there, before the secret entrance is no longer revealed.

Then we finally meet a dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), who just wants to get his sleep on, but bitches be burglin’, so he has to get his rage on.

“Damn it Bilbo, I will not draw you like a french girl. Stop asking!” – Smaug

The term desolation might not mean what it used to mean. With a title like that, and if you already know The Hobbit story, you then know when this movie is going to stop at.

But you’d be wrong.

After seeing this movie in theaters, I left with an overall bad taste in my mouth, definitely something I didn’t see coming, and rather unfortunate, due to the size and nature of this movie.

I should reiterate, I don’t care what the the book story is, and the sideplots they added from other source material to make these movies. More interesting plot lines never hurt anyone. But this movie is called The Hobbit and subtitled The Desolation of Smaug. A better, more descriptive title would have been Legolas Kicks Ass, and then they meet Smaug. Which is all this movie felt like to me.

Sure, there was a cool spider scene. The barrel escape was nifty. But plot line wise with this film, you would find a hard time figuring out what actually gets accomplished. Once they introduce Legolas, they almost forget about the other characters, and focus on how amazing he and Tauriel the other elf are at fighting. It becomes just a Legolas show when he is literally running around Laketown and taking out a whole Orc invasion pretty much on his own.

Smaug was very badass. That is very clear. He was a well made CGI creation, probably one of the better dragons I have ever seen in a CGI movie. The best scene in the movie for me was the initial encounter between Smaug and Bilbo, when Smaug toyed with Bilbo as he ran through the treasure piles. But eventually he felt like nothing more than a cheap cartoon villain, or something, once the Dwarves got involved and start to mess with him.

I understand that this movie is part of a series, but I felt like this one has done the worst job at still telling a complete and actual story. Each of the LOTR stories felt complete. Yes they had more to do, but they ended at appropriate points once the current biggest baddest climactic point was finished, the ones they were building up to for each film. An Unexpected Journey ends after a series of skirmishes, a close encounter with death, and the dwarves finally learning to accept Bilbo.

This movie LITERALLY ends right in the middle of a fight. What in the fuck. Is this Lost? Is this some show that needs cliffhangers? So instead of getting a complete story, I get part of a story. A 160 minute part of a story.

Here is a third picture, to give you a better scope of this movie.

So what is the main complaint? I guess, somehow, it is their change from 2 to 3 movies. A problem I didn’t have with the first one, but I believe in this one becomes very very apparent. This entire movie, save for a few scenes, felt like filler, working towards the third, probably more exciting and conclusive story.

I will reiterate, Smaug was great. The barrel scene was way better than I could have imagined. The spiders were interesting. But everything else just fell flat or felt repetitive. I felt no fear from the Orcs the entire movie. The appeared, they died, they kept appearing, they kept dying.

Peter Jackson might thing he is infallible now, given the original success, and other successes of stuff like The Adventures of TinTin, but for this film I think he reached too far.

1 out of 4.

Watch out everyone, movie event of the year coming through.

Sure, that is debatable. After all, Twilight Ended, the year isn’t over yet, and the end of Batman Trilogy and Avengers went down. But The Hobbit still may have been a greater buildup. After all, the previous LOTR movies were all nominated for Academy Awards, and the last one won!

This is a new trilogy, taking in more than just the Hobbit book, with tons of lore, and stretched into three movies. I AM ALLOWING MYSELF SPOILERS IN THE SECTION IN BETWEEN PICTURES, BECAUSE WELL, most people know this story anyways. The Animated Movie was a thing, after all. That middle section is normally reserved for plot anyways, and I feel like its hard to really give away shit, because its so well known.

Either way, spoilers in the middle warnings!

Spoiler: Only one hobbit is really focused on in this movie. That’s 75% less Hobbits than LOTR.

As most of you know, The Hobbit takes place before LOTR. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is a simple Hobbit, who doesn’t like adventure. Gandalf (Ian McKellen) comes by, fucks it all up, and without warning, thirteen dwarves have crashed the place and are eating all his food! Oh noes!

Why? Because they want to reclaim their ancient kingdom, that a terrible dragon named Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) has taken over! Thorin (Richard Armitage) is the last line of Dwarven royalty, and technical king of a home they don’t control. He sent out a call for dwarves to help him take back the mountain, and only 12 answered. But according to Gandalf, they also need a Burgler, and he has decided that Bilbo will fit the bill.

The first hobbit movie ends after the encounter with Gollum (Andy Serkis) and the escape from the Goblins, and then the further escape from the orcs by Eagle Power. We also get an appearance of Frodo (Elijah Wood), Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and a pre-evil Saruman (Christopher Lee). Balin (Ken Stott) is the next main dwarf, Azog (Manu Bennett) is the pale orc main antagonist, Figwit is now Lindir (Bret McKenzie). AND THEN WE HAVE RADAGAST THE BROWN (Sylvester McCoy). A mother fucking druid/crazy wizard?

Don’t remember him? Because like I said, this is more than the Hobbit. A lot of the Tale of the Necromancer is in here too, and was only set up in this movie. Gandalf left the Hobbit a lot to do his own shit, and he was doing the necromancer stuff. This added a lot to the movie that I wasn’t expecting.

One other thing I liked? Well, as most of you know the story, you know that Gandalf and the Eagles are a Deus Ex Machina on a stick. Rarely do they solve their own problems without one or both of the groups coming to save the day. Same thing happened in LOTR, and it was pretty annoying. One of the biggest examples is when they are in the trees with the orcs and worgs attacking, then the Eagles come and carry them away. Well, in the movie, that scene is QUITE longer and a bit more inspirational. Yes, it ends the same way, but damn it, the Dwarves don’t just sit their crying. They fight back, they give it their all, they show courage and bravery. I loved that change. Same result at the end, but I think the way they got there was a little bit better.

Pictured: Actual Trolls picking apart the Hobbit.

First off, no I didn’t get to see the movie in 48 fps. They decided to can the wide release idea, and only have it in select theaters. Sucks to suck, I might get to see it next week that way, all depends on if I want to see it again. The 3D on its own, was very nicely done, rounding out the movie in a good way, like Life of Pi did.

Martin Freeman felt really good as Bilbo. I understand the direction they took the character is a bit more witty and awesome, versus kind of a selfish asshole. Same with the dwarves, but really, I think it made the story better. There were like, three songs in this movie, maybe a throw back to the animated movie. None as silly as those songs, unfortunately.

I also read an article telling me the main 19 differences between the book and the film, and honestly, it mostly seemed like harmless fluff changes that didn’t matter. But when I left the theater, I heard lots of grumblings in regards to changes from the book still. Oh well, one day people might not have a shit. Just kidding, it will never got away.

It had its flaws, and some pacing issues in it. Personally the rock giant fight scene came completely out of nowhere for me, and didn’t really make…any sense. Just happened in the middle of traveling, no explanation, no buildup, and then it was done. Really disliked that scene.

3 out of 4.

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?

2 out of 4