Movie Walrus: LeVar Goes To The Pictures Part II - Electric Boogaloo... THE REVEAL

12th place and 4 pts to
Angels & Demons (2009)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/

IMDB wrote:

Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works with a nuclear physicist to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican during one of the significant events within the church.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 58%

Review:
I've never read or watched any of the Dan Brown stuff, but I recall the craze at the time where everybody and their mother were recommending Dan Brown stories because they were incredibly clever, but honestly the people who recommended it to me most were the sort of people who had difficulty tying their own shoes, so the more people told me to read/watch The Da Vinci Code or Angels & Demons, the more I never wanted to. Which is a long way of saying, I expected to hate this, but it was quite a lot better than I thought it would be. It's not even half as clever as it thinks it is though, is incredibly convulted, and I still certainly don't get the hype, but I was expected to be bored out of my mind for over two hours, and I wasn't. It was more than watchable, a huge amount of which boils down to my fondness of Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor, both of whom are far from bringing their A Game here, but even when phoning it in it's hard to fault them. A bit of levity added in could've really increased my enjoyment, it was just a bit too sombre for my liking. There are some scenes and sequences that were very enjoyable indeed, but it never really wowed me or anything, and overall I'd describe it as "just fine".

Which brings us to our Top 3 and Bottom 3, who are (in alphabetical order)...

Arghus
cee_jay
Irish Aris
JP Liz V1
mustang shelly
Sawduck

And we'll make them sweat for a few minutes before diving into that...

13th place and 3 pts to
The Expendables 2 (2012)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764651/

IMDB wrote:

Mr. Church reunites the Expendables for what should be an easy paycheck, but when one of their men is murdered on the job, their quest for revenge puts them deep in enemy territory and up against an unexpected threat.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 51%

Review:
Generic action movie is unsurprisingly generic. I'm sure I'm supposed to give a crap that all of these big name mumbling and slurred-speech action stars are all crammed into one film and lose my sh*t when they say their catchphrases from the movies they're best known for, but I really don't care all that much about most of them in general. I like Dolph Lundgren and Terry Crews, but they're hugely underutilized here. I'd be a fan of Jason Statham, but he's far better in other films where he gets to show his comedy chops a lot more, although he does have some decent moments in this. The Chuck Norris scenes I genuinely really really liked, especially the nods to the early internet memes based on Norris, but at the end of the day, it's just a cameo role he has in this film ; his scenes alone just about drag this film over the 50% point though. Stallone, Schwarzeneger, Willis, and Van Damme have made some cracking films in their time, but for me they're not selling points or a draw for me to watch a film, and they just did nothing for me in this. All that said, there's some good action sequences and I didn't dislike it, I just didn't particularly enjoy it either, and overal was just a bit indifferent to the whole experience.

3rd place and 14 pts to
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179933/

IMDB wrote:

After getting in a car accident, a woman is held in a shelter by a man who claims that the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack.

Have I Seen It Before: Yes

LeVar's Approval Rating: 93%

Review:
The majority of this film is absolutely flawless, and then there's the few minutes that feel shoe-horned in to tie in with Cloverfield, that prevent me from giving it full marks, because they just take away from the amazing drama and brilliance that makes up the guts of the story. I know the original script initially had nothing to do with Cloverfield at all and that that came much later when producers got involved and started tinkering around with it. It's an amazing film, I genuinely love it, everyone should watch it, and it's the greatest performance of John Goodman's career, its just that I find the "Cloverfield" elements somewhat jarring and they feel a bit like a toddler jamming a square peg into a round hole. Ultimately in the grand scheme of the film, it's a minor thing, and I'm only making a big deal out of it because it's the sole reason I'm not giving this 100% ; like watching a gymnastics performance that is truly breathtaking, and then the gymnast fecks it up and fails to stick the landing, so as a judge you can't give it full marks.

14th place and 2 pts to
Paddington 2 (2017)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4468740/

IMDB wrote:

Paddington (Ben Whishaw), now happily settled with the Brown family and a popular member of the local community, picks up a series of odd jobs to buy the perfect present for his Aunt Lucy's (Imelda Staunton's) 100th birthday, only for the gift to be stolen.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 50%

Review:
Two main thoughts ran through my head on a loop while watching this film, "they sent that poor little bear to prison on a shocking lack of evidence," and "I know this is a movie for children, but they are really downplaying what prison is like, not that I was expecting Oz levels of gritty portrayal, but they should use this opportunity to dissuade kids from becoming criminals, not paint prison like a rosy holiday camp". And honestly those two thoughts were my main takeaway from watching this. I had seen the first one at one point and remember quite enjoying it, but it wasn't especially memorable, and I had heard on several occasions that this was better than the first one and one of the best kids movies in recent years, so my expectations were probably a bit high going in, but even if they weren't I can't see myself viewing this film as anything but overwhelmingly 'meh'. I enjoyed Brendan Gleeson's performance, but didn't care for Hugh Grant's villainous portrayal, and nobody else stood out one way or the other, so it kind of balanced out. It was sweet and inoffensive, and that's about it ; I didn't dislike it, nor did I particularly enjoy it, it was just fine, very middle of the road, and thus it gets the ultimate middle of the road rating from me.

2nd place and 15 pts to
Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2848292/

IMDB wrote:

After a humiliating command performance at The Kennedy Center, the Barden Bellas enter an international competition that no American group has ever won in order to regain their status and right to perform.

Have I Seen It Before: Yes

LeVar's Approval Rating: 94%

Review:
This is a great example of a sequel that builds on everything that they got right with the first one and they make it even better ; the songs are better, the comedy is better, the chemistry between the characters is better, the new characters introduced are perfect, and it all just works. Pitch Perfect appeared in my first Walrus and I gave it a total of 87%, which is a great rating, and the sequel just kicks everything up a few gears. Funnily enough, I only watched this over Christmas and I didn't think watching it again so soon would do it any favours and I feared there may have been diminishing returns, but I loved every second of it yet again, and it was just a joyous two hours once again, which is a great sign when re-watching something in such a timeframe. Elisabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins are beyond amazing in every scene they're in, could've easily watched ten hours straight of the two of them just bouncing off each other. All the returning cast members were great, the German villains were class, plus Hailee Steinfeld and Keegan Michael-Key were perfect additions to the cast for me as I'm a big fan of both of them. A pitch perfect choice indeed.

Last place and 1 pts to
Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocalypse (2004)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337103/

IMDB wrote:

Pierre Niemans faces the threat of the apocalypse while investigating a series of ritual murders.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 17%

Review:
What the actual f**k was that supposed to be? There's a couple of cool action sequences, that I genuinely enjoyed, shoehorned into this convulted drivel, and they elevate the film from completely unwatchable sh*t, to mostly unwatchable sh*t with two solid action scenes that just managed to convince me to award this film about 17% more than it deserves to get. Jean Reno and Christopher Lee are two top tier actors whose talents are completely wasted in this crap, and Benoit Magimel puts in a decent enough performance here that it makes me want to see how he fares in a good film that isn't a complete waste of time. It would be unfair of me to suggest that there's no plot at all here, because there is one, but its just stupid and poorly executed, and really just wasn't my cup of tea at all.

9th place and 8 pts to
A Perfect World (1993)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107808/

IMDB wrote:

Kidnapped boy Phillip Perry (T.J. Lowther) strikes up a friendship with his captor Butch Haynes (Kevin Costner): an escaped convict on the run from the law, while the search is headed up by honorable Texas Ranger "Red" Garrett (Clint Eastwood).

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 81%

Review:
Didn't know what to expect from this one at all, I think I had heard the name beforehand, but I had no idea what it was about or even what genre it was, and opted to remain in the dark until I hit play. I really enjoyed it, it's a great story and I was invested in the characters (well, most of them anyway, more on that in a moment) throughout, especially the two main characters Butch and Phillip. Kevin Costner is an actor who I remember getting a fair bit of stick for some of his roles, but I've always enjoyed any movies he's been in, but this is probably his best performance. T.J. Lowther was fine as far as child actors go, he didn't really stand out as a particularly good, but I wouldn't say he was bad either and for the part he was playing his performace suited the character he was playing. My only real issue with this film was Clint Eastwood's performance. I felt he should've just focused on the directing here rather than taking on a character role himself, he didn't have any chemistry with the rest of the cast, and he had great actors like Laura Dern and Bradley Whitford to bounce off of, but he just lacked any charisma or likability whatsoever, and his character annoyed me as a result ; I did mention in the last round that I don't really care for Eastwood in general. Thankfully the majority of the film is spent following Costner and Lowther, and I also enjoyed all of the other supporting characters along the way, so Eastwood aside, overall I really enjoyed it.

8th place and 9 pts to
Baby's Day Out (1994)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109190/

IMDB wrote:

After three kidnappers lose the baby they have kidnapped, both the cops and kidnappers go looking for the baby.

Have I Seen It Before: Yes

LeVar's Approval Rating: 82%

Review:
This is one of those movies that I had on VHS as a kid that was battered and worn out from the amount of times it had been watched. It was a firm favourite of my siblings and I back in the latter half of the 1990s. I also haven't watched it since the late '90s, for fear it was one of those films that I had fond memories of, but wouldn't hold up well on a re-watch. I actually met Joe Pontoliano there a few years back and I was telling him how it was one of my favourite movies as a kid, and he said it was one he really loves himself because it's one of the few films he had made that he was able to show his own kids as they were growing up. He was also telling me that Verne Troyer (best known as Mini Me from Austin Powers) was the stunt double for the Baby in the movie (something I wouldn't have thought about when I was a kid), and that there was also a robot baby for some of the scenes, and I was really worried when I sat down to watch this that something like that would be glaringly obvious on this rewatch and take me out of the film, but it holds up remarkably well, and I had no reason to fear. I did notice the body/robot doubles once or twice, but they never looked out of place and its as enjoyable a film as I remember. A great trip down memory lane for me. The one big issue I did have with it, is that the part of Eddie was clearly written with Joe Pesci in mind, but he wasn't available or turned it down, so they gave the part to Joe Mantegna, and it just felt out of place for me… you have Joe Mantegna trying to play Joe Pesci, and it just doesn't work as there's only one Joe Pesci. The two twins who play the baby though were fantastic, they somehow give the character a big personality, and I'm one of those people who think all babies look the same and are boring until they can hold a conversation, so that's impressive for a couple of babies.

7th place and 10 pts to
Cujo (1983)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085382/

IMDB wrote:

Cujo, a friendly St. Bernard, contracts rabies and conducts a reign of terror on a small American town.

Have I Seen It Before: Yes

LeVar's Approval Rating: 87%

Review:
If I'm not mistaken, this is the first adult horror movie I ever watched, at about age 11. Not sure if my Mam decided to let me watch it after endless begging or if I snuck the VHS into the house and just waited for the prime occasion to watch it when I knew I wouldn't be interrupted (most likely it was the second one), but I managed to watch it anyway, absolutely loved it, thought I was bad ass for surviving through an 18's Rated Horror, and I've always held it in high regard ever since. It's the film that instilled in me not only a love for the Horror Genre, but also prompted me to start reading Stephen King novels (again at too young an age to be doing so). It definitely has it's problems, it takes forever to get to the Cujo of it all, the kid is annoying and his screams are painful to the ear, and they spend a bit too long on Vic's work problems considering they're largely irrelevant, but I actually don't care and can overlook a lot of that stuff that I'd probably completely slate other films for because the rest of it is great and nostalgia covers all of the cracks. Haven't watched it in a long time, but it holds up much better than I had expected too. Great choice in what is unfortunately a hotly contested round, which means middle-of-the-pack is the best Cujo can do despite the high rating.

11th place and 6 pts to
A Monster Calls (2016)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3416532/

IMDB wrote:

A boy seeks the help of a tree monster to cope with his single mother's terminal illness.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 66%

Review:
This was a tough one to rate, because there was a lot to love about this film and I'm sure there will be people who have seen it thinking I'm a monster for not giving it a near perfect rating. The concept is amazing, the cinematography beautiful, the acting great, I loved the style changes during the storytelling moments, at its heart this is a really beautiful story, and for the most part I really did enjoy it… however there was one big flaw that happens to be a real pet peeve of mine, which is that the emotional weight was unearned and felt completely hollow. The recipe is there for a film that should by all rights have had me balling my eyes out, except they left out the main ingredient of making me really give a sh*t about the characters and their relationships with each other. There were a lot of beats in the film where it felt like I was expected to feel emotion because a moment was happening between Conor and his mother, father, grandmother, or classmate whose characters are given such little screentime, none of the relationships are fleshed out in any significant way, so I just never felt what I was meant to be feeling in those moments. Which was annoying, because the skeleton of the film, and the concept of the film is really strong, and Lewis MacDougall who plays Conor gives a good performance ; in contrast to everyone else his scenes with The Monster are genuinely great. I still enjoyed it, 66% is still a good rating, but the potential was there for this film to knock it out of the park completely, and it's a shame that they bungled it in such a way.

6th place an 11 pts to
Marley and Me (2008)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/

IMDB wrote:

A family learns important life lessons from their adorable, but naughty and neurotic dog.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 88%

Review:
I'm not a dog lover, so I wasn't sure if I'd have much of an affection for a film designed to tug on the heart strings of dog lovers, but it was a really sweet and well crafted story. Even if I'm still not crazy about canines, I loved Marley as a character, and I know what any of you familiar with the film all really want to know, so yeah the stupid dog made me tear up a couple of times. This is just a really good character driven movie though, and I was inherently invested in the lives of John and Jenny and Marley, getting sucked into and lost in their world for the guts of two hours, and I'm always harping on about being invested in well written characters, so in that regard it absolutely ticks all the boxes. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston are two actors I don't think always get enough credit, because they're primarily associated with comedy and they have always excelled at the funny side of things, but they also absolutely nail really emotional dramatic scenes, and I would love to see them both get cast in a lot more dramatic roles in general. Twenty-two different dogs played Marley in this apparently, there were also other dogs as well, and there's quite a lot of children of varying ages involved too, and I imagine that filming this was absolutely chaotic, but the end product is great.

5th place and 12 pts to
Megan Leavey (alt title: Rex) (2017)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4899370/

IMDB wrote:

Based on the true life story of a young Marine corporal whose unique discipline and bond with her military combat dog saved many lives during their deployment in Iraq.

Have I Seen It Before: No

LeVar's Approval Rating: 89%

Review:
To be perfectly honest, I was extremely apprehensive about this one, as I have a bit of an aversion to US Military & War Dramas ; mostly because I just can't handle all of the over the top patriotism that generally goes hand in hand with those types of films. Thankfully, that wasn't really an issue with this film, as it's all about the bond between Megan and Rex with the Marine Corps and War in Iraq being the backdrop to that story rather than the main focus. Due to my apprehension going in, it definitely took me by surprise how much I loved this. The first hour or so is absolutely perfect, and although it drags a bit for me at certain points in the second half, I was still very much invested in the story. Kate Mara gave a solid performance, and I really enjoyed the supporting cast as well ; always great to see Bradley Whitford and Edie Falco, and was great to see Tom Felton (aka. Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter movies) make an appearance too. Having looked it up, it looks like it was just the one dog, Varco, who played Rex throughout the film, and definitely have to give that dog some props too, some top notch animal acting from him. Great choice, really liked this one.