Search
Search results
ELSA Speak - Accent Reduction
Education and Games
App
Learn to speak English doesn’t have to be scary and lonely anymore. With ELSA - your English...
Schlaukopf
Education and Games
App
- Stoff für alle Jahrgangsstufen und Schultypen - eine große Auswahl an Schulfächern -...
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Let the games begin!
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was an interesting film, the marketing was excellent and I wanted to see it even though I knew almost nothing about it. I knew it was based upon a novel but I hadn't read it. Jennifer Lawrence plays the lead of Katniss Everdeen and in my review of X-Men: First Class, I put her as the stand out performance of the film. I could see that she had something special, but would she be up to the task of carrying the whole film? Would my prediction about her be right?
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem in Video Games
Oct 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 28, 2019)
Psychological Warfare
Contains spoilers, click to show
Eternal Darkness- why does no one talk about this game. It is amazing, its horrorfying, terroryfying, spooky, creepy, thrilling, chilling and so much more. Plus it came out only for the gamecube, which is huge because nintendo doesnt put out or release alot of horror games. This, luigi's mansion and Resident Evil 4 were the big horror games for the gamecube. Maybe more came out, but those 3 were the big ones. Lets talk about this game, shall we....
The narrative of the game's story switches between two phases. The main phase focuses on a series of chapters in which players take control of a new character each time. The other phase acts as an intermission. The game boasts twelve playable characters, split between four distinct locations, and from different periods of time.
The story features multiple paths that can be taken. This choice not only determines which of the game's three other antagonists are aligned to the plot, but it also has subtle effects on the gameplay in chapters and intermission periods. Some changes include slight differences in puzzles and items, but most changes revolve around enemy placement, which will determine how the player engages them. This can even have an effect on the relative difficulty of the game in certain situations. Red tinted enemies, for example, are tougher than their counterparts.
The other distinctive gameplay aspect comes from "Sanity Effects", the game's standout concept that Nintendo patented. Upon beginning the game's second chapter, players must keep watch on a Sanity meter – a green bar which decreases when the player is spotted by an enemy. As the bar becomes low, subtle changes to the environment and random unusual events begin to occur, which reflect the character's slackening grip on reality.
While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effect such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Lets talk about the plot/story....
The story of Eternal Darkness takes place over four principal locations which the game skips back and forth between. They include an underground temple complex called the Forbidden City, in Persia; a Khmer temple in Angkor Thom, Cambodia; Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France (not to be confused with Amiens Cathedral); and the Roivas Family Estate in Rhode Island, which also leads to an ancient underground city named Ehn'gha beneath the mansion. Each time a location is visited, it is done so in a different time period. Spanning from 26 BC to 2000 AD. Almost half of which take place in the 20th century. Each different era and character offers a different periodic and personal perspective on the location.
The chapters found in the game are not discovered in chronological order. Instead, to make the narrative more dramatic, each chapter jumps around the timeline of the plot. However, despite the overall story skipping back and forth through time, the chapters do follow chronological order within their respective locations. This is because each setting also has its own contained story.
This game is so good, its epic, im surprised that not of people know about this game and heard about this game.
I highly reccordmend playing this game.
Lastly shout out to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review.
The narrative of the game's story switches between two phases. The main phase focuses on a series of chapters in which players take control of a new character each time. The other phase acts as an intermission. The game boasts twelve playable characters, split between four distinct locations, and from different periods of time.
The story features multiple paths that can be taken. This choice not only determines which of the game's three other antagonists are aligned to the plot, but it also has subtle effects on the gameplay in chapters and intermission periods. Some changes include slight differences in puzzles and items, but most changes revolve around enemy placement, which will determine how the player engages them. This can even have an effect on the relative difficulty of the game in certain situations. Red tinted enemies, for example, are tougher than their counterparts.
The other distinctive gameplay aspect comes from "Sanity Effects", the game's standout concept that Nintendo patented. Upon beginning the game's second chapter, players must keep watch on a Sanity meter – a green bar which decreases when the player is spotted by an enemy. As the bar becomes low, subtle changes to the environment and random unusual events begin to occur, which reflect the character's slackening grip on reality.
While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effect such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Lets talk about the plot/story....
The story of Eternal Darkness takes place over four principal locations which the game skips back and forth between. They include an underground temple complex called the Forbidden City, in Persia; a Khmer temple in Angkor Thom, Cambodia; Oublié Cathedral in Amiens, France (not to be confused with Amiens Cathedral); and the Roivas Family Estate in Rhode Island, which also leads to an ancient underground city named Ehn'gha beneath the mansion. Each time a location is visited, it is done so in a different time period. Spanning from 26 BC to 2000 AD. Almost half of which take place in the 20th century. Each different era and character offers a different periodic and personal perspective on the location.
The chapters found in the game are not discovered in chronological order. Instead, to make the narrative more dramatic, each chapter jumps around the timeline of the plot. However, despite the overall story skipping back and forth through time, the chapters do follow chronological order within their respective locations. This is because each setting also has its own contained story.
This game is so good, its epic, im surprised that not of people know about this game and heard about this game.
I highly reccordmend playing this game.
Lastly shout out to @LeftSideCut for getting the hints/clues for this review.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated 3 Idiots (2009) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
So, I am writing a coffee table book that selects the 200 top films of 2000 – 2019. Called, predictably, 21st Century Cinema: 200 Unmissable films. It uses a system of rating I devised called The Decinemal, which takes the ten categories by which a film can be rated (Direction, Script, Design, Lead Acting, Support Acting, Music, Photography, Critical Acclaim, Watchability and X-Factor) and scores them out of 10, to give an overall score out of 100. Whilst not foolproof, it does give a remarkable working basis for comparing movies of different genres, and the ratings often bear a striking relation to the democratic system used by IMDb – a film scoring 7.2 on that website might be a 75 decinemal, for example, and that feels like that validates its use.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Based on true events, Military Wives tells the story of how the very first military wives charity group came to be formed. That initial group was soon followed by more Military Wives groups, with some of the earlier ones even starring in 2011 BBC reality show 'The Choir', led by Gareth Malone. The Military Wives choirs have continued to grow since then and now comprise of 2000 women, located at over 70 military bases around the world, producing hit singles and albums as they go from strength to strength. The movie is directed by Peter Cattaneo, who directed The Full Monty, and the trailer really does have that traditional feel-good British comedy vibe which we seem to churn out year after year in an attempt to be "this years Full Monty". I wasn't sure if this was going to be for me, but after I found myself thoroughly enjoying Fisherman's Friends last year, I went in with an open mind.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
Learn English, Speak English - Language guide
Education and Travel
App
Would you like to speak English? What if it would be easy and fun, taking only a couple of minutes...
Children's Bible Daily Prayers for Family & School
Book and Reference
App
Children's Prayer is an app for Christian families, teachers and catechists with kids of all ages....
Your Medical Encyclopaedia Premium
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Instantly available on your smart phone, iPad or android tablet, Your Medical Encyclopaedia Premium...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)