The original Jumanji is one of my favourite films. Amongst all the nightmares it gave me, it reminds me of my childhood, and was one of the most played videos, alongside The Witches, at my out of school club. Loved it. In fact I loved it so much that I got the DVD a few years ago whilst I was at uni, so we could watch it as a uni family. I'm sure most people my age would agree it is a seminal piece of cinema. When I saw there was a sequel, I was ecstatic. We were lucky enough to catch Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle on it's opening evening, and it was an absolute treat.
Jumanji is a jungle board game, updated in the new film, where it becomes, what seems to me, a Sega Mega Drive/N64 hybrid game. 4 high schoolers end up in detention, and unbeknownst to them, end up inside Jumanji. In order to escape the game, they must save Jumanji, and return a gem to the top of a giant jaguar statue.
I really enjoyed the references to gaming, for example, with the story telling characters that are not helpful at all. It bought back my frustration of trying to complete Zelda. I liked how each character's qualities and weaknesses all played into the film, and I thought it was really clever. There was also good development of characters, and the relationships between the characters. A fundamental part of Jumanji is the teamwork required to complete the game, which I felt was really pertinent in the storytelling.
I enjoyed the references back to the original film, I thought it was a lovely touch, especially following the death of Robin Williams in 2014. Just seeing the 'Jumanji house' bought back so many childhood memories.
I also enjoyed the fact Nick Jonas was in it. Very random.
The Rock was great, Kevin Hart was great, Karen Gillan was great, Jack Black was great. They clearly had a ball making the film, and it was so much fun to watch. It's not the most intellectual film, but it was really interesting to watch, and there were some really funny parts at all. Again, a lot of the best bits were shown in the trailer, but the film did have much more to give. It's a really easy watch, but the story has purpose and keeps you interested, as well as giving a message to the audience as well. I saw a few kids in the cinema, and thought it must be nice for both parents and children to be enjoying the film together. I think it was very good marketing to pitch the films over 20 years apart.
Overall, if Jumanji is as much a part of your childhood as it was to me, you will love this film regardless. If it wasn't, but you enjoyed the first film, or if you were intrigued by the trailer, definitley give it a go. It's a great little film to watch between Christmas and New Year, and I know Cineworld are also showing it in 4DX (That's the one with the wind and rain and snow and fog and smells etc). If you are reading this and know me in person, the Cineworld in Didsbury have just opened their 4DX screen this week. You're welcome. 8/10. Loved it.
Sunday, 24 December 2017
49. Daddy's Home 2
In 2015, we saw Daddy's Home in between Christmas and New Year. There's always that weird bit in between those two days, where some people are at work, some people aren't. You feel strange because just as you've stopped feeling christmassy you are ready for New Year and there is more prep to do, and more excitement to be had. That's if you celebrate either of them, of course, but I love New Year so much. It's when you can spend an evening with your friends, we don't tend to go out as it's so expensive, but we play games and dance until we fall over or are sick. Anyway.
So when we saw Daddy's Home in 2015, it was a filler activity, and actually it was better than anticipated. It's definitely got that laddy humour, and it's definitely silly and daft, but it gave that light relief and is a bit of a feel good film. As much as I prefer tongue in cheek, or political, or 'clever' humour, there is no doubt in my mind that Will Ferrell is an absolute genius. Anchorman is one of my favourite films ever.
So back to our sequel. The adverts and trailers I'd seen reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first film, and I was looking forward to seeing the next chapter. Again, I knew what I was getting myself into, it was going to be silly and light hearted. This time, the story follows Brad (Ferrell) and Dusty's (Mark Wahlberg) Christmas, as their fathers join them. Brad is the stepfather to Dusty's children, but following the original film, the sort their differences and manage to share the care for the children without argument. Brad's father is overbearingly kind and loving, but there is something else going on behind this, and Dusty's dad is cold and cool, not understanding of the 'co-dad' arrangement between Dusty and Brad. Following the arrangement of a Christmas holiday for the entire family, the plot is littered with ridiculous disasters that happen as the fathers work out their differences.
Now whereas with The Disaster Artist I left saying 'that was fantastic', I left Daddy's Home 2 with 'that was ridiculous'. The plot was weak, the whole premise was almost exactly the same as the previous film, and there was nothing overly exciting about it. I did laugh throughout the film, but I can't tell you any of the jokes now. There was nothing memorable. It seemed like a film for a film's sake. All of the most humorous parts were previewed in the trailers. There was nothing new. I have to be honest and say that this is one of the poorer films I have seen this year.
If you like a silly film, and you just want something easy to watch, then it does the job. But why not watch Shrek instead. The marvellous masterpiece that is Shrek. Daddy's Home 2 gets a 4/10 from me.
So when we saw Daddy's Home in 2015, it was a filler activity, and actually it was better than anticipated. It's definitely got that laddy humour, and it's definitely silly and daft, but it gave that light relief and is a bit of a feel good film. As much as I prefer tongue in cheek, or political, or 'clever' humour, there is no doubt in my mind that Will Ferrell is an absolute genius. Anchorman is one of my favourite films ever.
So back to our sequel. The adverts and trailers I'd seen reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first film, and I was looking forward to seeing the next chapter. Again, I knew what I was getting myself into, it was going to be silly and light hearted. This time, the story follows Brad (Ferrell) and Dusty's (Mark Wahlberg) Christmas, as their fathers join them. Brad is the stepfather to Dusty's children, but following the original film, the sort their differences and manage to share the care for the children without argument. Brad's father is overbearingly kind and loving, but there is something else going on behind this, and Dusty's dad is cold and cool, not understanding of the 'co-dad' arrangement between Dusty and Brad. Following the arrangement of a Christmas holiday for the entire family, the plot is littered with ridiculous disasters that happen as the fathers work out their differences.
Now whereas with The Disaster Artist I left saying 'that was fantastic', I left Daddy's Home 2 with 'that was ridiculous'. The plot was weak, the whole premise was almost exactly the same as the previous film, and there was nothing overly exciting about it. I did laugh throughout the film, but I can't tell you any of the jokes now. There was nothing memorable. It seemed like a film for a film's sake. All of the most humorous parts were previewed in the trailers. There was nothing new. I have to be honest and say that this is one of the poorer films I have seen this year.
If you like a silly film, and you just want something easy to watch, then it does the job. But why not watch Shrek instead. The marvellous masterpiece that is Shrek. Daddy's Home 2 gets a 4/10 from me.
Wednesday, 13 December 2017
48. Wonder
Another Tuesday afternoon film for me, Wonder follows the story of Auggie Pullman (Jacob Tremblay), a young boy with Treacher-Collins syndrome, as his parents (Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson) decide it is time for him to enrol in mainstream school, after being home schooled.
The film deals with issues around bullying and children being cruel, as well as parents being cruel, and people's reaction to when someone is 'different'. I enjoyed the films perspective on this, and I especially enjoyed the fact that the film had a focus on Auggie's sister Via (Izabela Vidovic). The film looked at the whole family dynamic of dealing with the change of moving to mainstream school, as well as other social factors that occur along side it.
The film had a solid moral message, looking at the way people treat each other. As the film progressed, a solid group of friends are formed around Auggie, as the children realise that sometimes being 'cool' or hanging around bullies, have consequences. The children realise that what they really wanted was friendship and kindness.
The film also illustrated the issue of thinking before you speak, as this got one of Auggie's closest friends into a lot of trouble, nearly losing their friendship.
The film is heartwarming and emotional, and is written and produced well to reflect this. It's written and directed by Stephen Chbosky, the writer and director of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (he also wrote the book), and is very similar in style. For me, the plot doesn't necessarily ever come to a head, but actually the emotional story is written very well.
This isn't the best film I've seen all year, but it was enjoyable. If you want something that's relatively easy to watch, and will leave you feeling a sense of justice and happiness, this may be a good choice. I found the film interesting to watch with it's different angles, and it really investigated how the whole family felt about the struggles of the transition to school, as well as the emotional heartache of watching a son/brother have countless major operations.
I do question why Jacob Tremblay was cast, as opposed to someone with a genetic condition themselves.
Overall, I think Wonder deserves a 7/10. Not the best film out at the moment, but certainly one worth a watch.
47. The Disaster Artist
We went in blind seeing this film; we've saved Daddy's Home 2 (a sure fire classic, or aboslute twaddle) for a Christmas special, and this was the only thing left we hadn't seen. I'd seen reviews that had said the film was meant to be great. It had 97% on Rotten Tomatoes when we booked, but as we all know, as time goes on, RT ratings tend to fall. All I knew was the film was meant to be good.
The film starts and tells us it is based on a real story. My first reaction was: is it actually though. Cynical as I am, turns out it actually is. The film tells the story of Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) and Greg Sestero (Dave Franco). Tommy is an mysterious aspiring actor with a seemingly bottomless pit of money. He enlists Greg, another budding actor, as they move to Hollywood to chase their dreams.
With a lack of success in acting circles, Tommy decides to write, direct and star in his own film 'The Room', writing a part for Greg as well. With his endless cash, Tommy is quite the maverick in the way he creates the film, buying equipment instead of hiring it, enlisting only the best of the best to help him produce the piece.
The Room actually became a cult classic film (see IMDb, 3.6/10, RT 26%), and lots of people in the cinema found the film hilarious, I assume there are lots of references to it. For someone who has never seen The Room, I still found the film really entertaining, and there were some excellent comedy moments. I do imagine that there is a certain type of humour the movie appeals to though, I don't think it is one for everyone.
I found the film quite emotionally interesting. There were parts of the film where I didn't know if Tommy had a motive, or was someone who just wanted to please, or if he had no motive at all. I found it quite interesting and the mystery behind his character is fascinating.
The film makes you want to know more, and after looking up some bits and bobs, I found that the film was not only based on the original, but also on a memoir written by Greg Sestero. I now really want to read the book! The story is so outlandish yet incredible, it makes you yearn for more. I really wasn't sure what we were expecting when booking the ticket, but the first thing I said as the credits started to roll was 'That was fantastic'.
As a little treat, at the end of the film there are some side-by-side shots of 'The Room' and The Disaster Artist’s interpretation. The comparisons are great, and shows the quality of acting from all parties, and also how terrible the original film was.
The film was fantastic, it was an unexpected treat, and I have to give it a 9/10. Probably would give it more but I think James Franco is a bit of a knob.
46. Paddington 2
Long time no see, today I'm blogging from the kitchen, halfway through making an absolute mess, halfway through making a bread and butter pudding. What a great pudding. For a christmassy twist, I've used panettone instead of bread. I've never made any type of bread and butter pudding before and I've made up the recipe so it could be an utter shambles. That's why I don't have a food blog.
Anyway, we're hear to talk about Paddington 2. I saw this last Tuesday, as although the film has been out for a while, there are still plenty of screenings, and there was one in the day at 2pm. I'm now a layabout student who has nothing to do Monday - Wednesday (she says this as she picks up extra shifts) so that just suited me fine.
For anyone who has seen the first film and loved it, this sequel is just as good. It's silly, funny and charming, and it has a decent plot line, as long as you are willing to let your imagination run away with you. There were parts of the film where I was trying to stifle laughter, as the only people in the cinema was me, and a mother and toddler combo, and I thought it would be a bit weird to have a 24 year old howling with laughter in the corner.
The plot follows Paddington as he tries to earn and save money to buy his Aunt Lucy a perfect 100th Birthday present. Paddington starts his own window cleaning business, but somehow ends up in a spot of bother, and gets sent to jail. Now he needs to get out, get justice, AND get Aunt Lucy a present.
The film is full of familiar faces, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Ben Miller, Hugh Grant, Peter Capaldi, Joanna Lumley, to name but a few. The film was co-written by Simon Farnaby, who also has a cameo. I really like Farnaby's work, and comedy. If you are a fan of the Boosh, or this years absolute classic 'Mindhorn', you might recognise him. He also starred in 2009's 'The Bunny and the Bull', a rare film I saw pre-2015. Another great surprise was the brief yet fantastic appearance of Richard Ayoade, a man who could just stand still and do nothing, and I'd still be crying with laughter. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cast is great and the acting is brilliant. It looks like a lot of fun was had on the set.
I've just put the bread and butter pudding in the oven. Keep reading this and the next reviews for updates.
The whole production of the film is surreal is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Many of you will know I love a true to life film, or a documentary, or an interesting but realistic plot. However, I do like things that are fantastical in this sort of way. If you forget about reality and rhyme and reason, and let the film capture your imagination, you will love it. It's a shame the film won't be out on DVD for a while, because it's definitely a film perfect for watching with the family around Christmas, appealing to all ages (Probably the reason why it's out now isn't it)
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film, and have to give it a 9/10. It was brilliant.
Anyway, we're hear to talk about Paddington 2. I saw this last Tuesday, as although the film has been out for a while, there are still plenty of screenings, and there was one in the day at 2pm. I'm now a layabout student who has nothing to do Monday - Wednesday (she says this as she picks up extra shifts) so that just suited me fine.
For anyone who has seen the first film and loved it, this sequel is just as good. It's silly, funny and charming, and it has a decent plot line, as long as you are willing to let your imagination run away with you. There were parts of the film where I was trying to stifle laughter, as the only people in the cinema was me, and a mother and toddler combo, and I thought it would be a bit weird to have a 24 year old howling with laughter in the corner.
The plot follows Paddington as he tries to earn and save money to buy his Aunt Lucy a perfect 100th Birthday present. Paddington starts his own window cleaning business, but somehow ends up in a spot of bother, and gets sent to jail. Now he needs to get out, get justice, AND get Aunt Lucy a present.
The film is full of familiar faces, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Ben Miller, Hugh Grant, Peter Capaldi, Joanna Lumley, to name but a few. The film was co-written by Simon Farnaby, who also has a cameo. I really like Farnaby's work, and comedy. If you are a fan of the Boosh, or this years absolute classic 'Mindhorn', you might recognise him. He also starred in 2009's 'The Bunny and the Bull', a rare film I saw pre-2015. Another great surprise was the brief yet fantastic appearance of Richard Ayoade, a man who could just stand still and do nothing, and I'd still be crying with laughter. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cast is great and the acting is brilliant. It looks like a lot of fun was had on the set.
I've just put the bread and butter pudding in the oven. Keep reading this and the next reviews for updates.
The whole production of the film is surreal is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Many of you will know I love a true to life film, or a documentary, or an interesting but realistic plot. However, I do like things that are fantastical in this sort of way. If you forget about reality and rhyme and reason, and let the film capture your imagination, you will love it. It's a shame the film won't be out on DVD for a while, because it's definitely a film perfect for watching with the family around Christmas, appealing to all ages (Probably the reason why it's out now isn't it)
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film, and have to give it a 9/10. It was brilliant.
Monday, 20 November 2017
45. Murder on the Orient Express
If you know me, you’ll know I love murder. Murder is in the title of the film. I’m pretty much sold. I love a murder mystery; simple whodunit plot, and I’m there. Chuck in a few massively famous faces, and what could go wrong.
Now I hate to follow suit with any other reviews you might have read/heard/seen, but this really isn’t the best film. You might see Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfieffer, Dame Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh, Penelope Cruz, but unfortunately a well billed film doesn’t make a good one. Branagh directed the film, and gave himself the starring role, but didn’t live up to it. Depp isn’t in it for very long and doesn’t leave much of an impression, Dench also isn’t in it for ages (but she is great- her side kick is Olivia Coleman, also great, but maybe not the best role for her), Pfieffer and Cruz I just found annoying. I feel like the characters could have been explored and utilised more, as of course they all have depth, and this holds importance in the story.
Sometimes the plot danced around and it lost my attention. I found this difficult, as Murder on the Orient Express is such a famous story (obviously I’ve not seen it previous to this, as I have only seen films from 2015 onwards), you’d imagine I would be fully immersed in it. I felt like I was more hooked watching The Snowman, a murder mystery with some very obvious plot holes. There was a bit of ‘is it him’ ‘is it her’ whilst watching the film, but honestly, I wasn’t overly invested. So when I found out the big surprise, I found it quite boring. I found the ending a bit of a cop out, and I thought it could have been much more exciting.
Now here is where the problem lies. Do I find the storyline dull? Or is it the way it’s portrayed. Speaking to people beforehand, they had told me it was a great plot. It must be, surely, as it is so famous. I can see how the plot could be clever, how it could all fit together like a perfect jigsaw. But through this interpretation, that is not how I felt. I felt disappointed. I wanted more from the film.
Again, we ask the question- is there too much hype? Do the big names attract the attention, but detract from the bigger picture? If you have seen the story before, I would give this version a miss. If you haven’t, I reckon it’s worth seeing it, as it’s a classic, but maybe see a different version. Maybe I’ll see a different version and let you know how I find it (probably not). Overall, I can only give Murder on the Orient Express a weak 6/10. Not worth the hype.
Now I hate to follow suit with any other reviews you might have read/heard/seen, but this really isn’t the best film. You might see Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfieffer, Dame Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh, Penelope Cruz, but unfortunately a well billed film doesn’t make a good one. Branagh directed the film, and gave himself the starring role, but didn’t live up to it. Depp isn’t in it for very long and doesn’t leave much of an impression, Dench also isn’t in it for ages (but she is great- her side kick is Olivia Coleman, also great, but maybe not the best role for her), Pfieffer and Cruz I just found annoying. I feel like the characters could have been explored and utilised more, as of course they all have depth, and this holds importance in the story.
Sometimes the plot danced around and it lost my attention. I found this difficult, as Murder on the Orient Express is such a famous story (obviously I’ve not seen it previous to this, as I have only seen films from 2015 onwards), you’d imagine I would be fully immersed in it. I felt like I was more hooked watching The Snowman, a murder mystery with some very obvious plot holes. There was a bit of ‘is it him’ ‘is it her’ whilst watching the film, but honestly, I wasn’t overly invested. So when I found out the big surprise, I found it quite boring. I found the ending a bit of a cop out, and I thought it could have been much more exciting.
Now here is where the problem lies. Do I find the storyline dull? Or is it the way it’s portrayed. Speaking to people beforehand, they had told me it was a great plot. It must be, surely, as it is so famous. I can see how the plot could be clever, how it could all fit together like a perfect jigsaw. But through this interpretation, that is not how I felt. I felt disappointed. I wanted more from the film.
Again, we ask the question- is there too much hype? Do the big names attract the attention, but detract from the bigger picture? If you have seen the story before, I would give this version a miss. If you haven’t, I reckon it’s worth seeing it, as it’s a classic, but maybe see a different version. Maybe I’ll see a different version and let you know how I find it (probably not). Overall, I can only give Murder on the Orient Express a weak 6/10. Not worth the hype.
44. Thor: Ragnarok
I really wasn’t bothered at all about this film. I’ve never seen any other Thor film before, and we all know I’m not bothered about superheroes unless is it’s Christopher Nolan’s Batman. I’d heard really good reviews, but as the film started, I wasn’t particularly enthused. The starting scenes I thought were trying to be funny, with Thor captured and struggling to escape without his hammer. I guess this kind of sets the scene for those who managed to see the 2 other films, read any sort of comic, or be culturally aware. For me I didn’t really understand what was going on, and didn’t really care.
However, about 15 – 20 minutes into the film, I was completely hooked. The storyline was good, and captured my imagination. To keep my attention, we have lots of fun cameos from other Marvel characters. My personal favourite was Benedict Cumberbatch, where I exclaimed ‘it’s him, what’s his name, Magic Fingers’. Apparently that character is called Dr Strange (the 2016 movie wasn’t bad at all). I didn’t have a full understanding of the Hulk’s character, but quickly picked this up as we meet him along the way as well. Who knew, maybe I do like superhero films.
We also come across the best character in the film by a country mile, Korg. Voiced by Taika Waititi (the film’s director), Korg is completely hilarious, I couldn’t stop laughing his dry deadpan humour, hilarious stories, and one liners. In fact, Thor on the whole is a pretty funny movie. It wasn’t try hard funny, and it wasn’t laugh a minute funny, but the light relief throughout the film really enhanced the plot and dialogue.
I thought the film on the whole was really well done, I guess when you are on the third in the series of a franchise, you expect it to be a bit rubbish, but I genuinely thought it was a good film. I don’t have anything to compare to, but IMdb gives both the first films a solid 7/10. I thought the acting was pretty good, the interaction between the characters and the CGI characters was believable, and the plot alongside it worked really well. I picked up the gist of the film quickly, and didn’t feel alienated, although I’d imagine there are lots of points of reference for fans of the first films.
Overall, it might sound generous, but Thor: Ragnarok gets an 8.5/10 from me. I went it not expecting much, but thoroughly enjoyed my evening. If you can catch it, it’s definitely worth a watch.
However, about 15 – 20 minutes into the film, I was completely hooked. The storyline was good, and captured my imagination. To keep my attention, we have lots of fun cameos from other Marvel characters. My personal favourite was Benedict Cumberbatch, where I exclaimed ‘it’s him, what’s his name, Magic Fingers’. Apparently that character is called Dr Strange (the 2016 movie wasn’t bad at all). I didn’t have a full understanding of the Hulk’s character, but quickly picked this up as we meet him along the way as well. Who knew, maybe I do like superhero films.
We also come across the best character in the film by a country mile, Korg. Voiced by Taika Waititi (the film’s director), Korg is completely hilarious, I couldn’t stop laughing his dry deadpan humour, hilarious stories, and one liners. In fact, Thor on the whole is a pretty funny movie. It wasn’t try hard funny, and it wasn’t laugh a minute funny, but the light relief throughout the film really enhanced the plot and dialogue.
I thought the film on the whole was really well done, I guess when you are on the third in the series of a franchise, you expect it to be a bit rubbish, but I genuinely thought it was a good film. I don’t have anything to compare to, but IMdb gives both the first films a solid 7/10. I thought the acting was pretty good, the interaction between the characters and the CGI characters was believable, and the plot alongside it worked really well. I picked up the gist of the film quickly, and didn’t feel alienated, although I’d imagine there are lots of points of reference for fans of the first films.
Overall, it might sound generous, but Thor: Ragnarok gets an 8.5/10 from me. I went it not expecting much, but thoroughly enjoyed my evening. If you can catch it, it’s definitely worth a watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)