Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bleed For This (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Bleed for This is the true story of boxer Vinny Pazienza (Miles Teller). Vinny is the type of person that in and out of the ring goes all out to the point he can go no further. This mindset puts him on the verge of being out of boxing after losing three straight fights, which he drastically cuts weight to fight. As he searches for one last chance, he is paired with a new trainer, Kevin Rooney (Aaron Eckhart), who is also seemingly given his last chance to revive his career. Rooney sets out to change the way Vinny trains and convinces him that fighting at a heavier weight will help his body, he previously was taking drastic measures to cut weight for fights. The pair are committed to success even with Vinny’s head strong father’s (Angelo Pazienza played by Ciarán Hinds) disapproving of the change, his mother (Louise Pazienza played by Katey Sagal) not wanting Vinny to get hurt, and his own Manager (Lou Duva played by Ted Levine) saying he should quit boxing all together. After some convincing and a lot of hard work Vinny gets his chance at one last fight. But he is moving up two weight classes and is put into a title fight against a seasoned opponent. Vinny shocks seemingly everyone by overcoming these obstacles and knocking out his favored opponent to become a World Champion.
After the biggest win of his career when everything appears to be going Vinny, his families and Rooney’s way, there is a terrible car accident and Vinny suffers a broken neck. The doctor tells him that he may never walk again, let alone box. With everyone telling him that his boxing career is over, Vinny is single-mindedly determined to do everything he can to get back into the ring. He opts to not have surgery in hopes that his neck can heal on its own and he can return to champion ship form. He has to convince Rooney to train him, find someone willing to fight him, and has to overcome his once over bearing father being unwilling be in his corner for the first time in his life. Even with a mountain of obstacles in his way, he begins his quest to get back into the ring and show everyone that he can do the impossible and regain his past form.
Writer and Director Ben Younger (Prime and Boiler Room) does an excellent job with this inspirational true story. The supporting cast provide solid performances, especial Eckhart and Hinds, but Miles Teller’s performance is what really makes this a fun film to watch. He really seemed to fit into this role really well. His performance was both compelling and fun. There were several times that the film showed actual old footage and footage just made to look old and you really couldn’t tell if it was Teller or the real Vinny Pazienza on the screen. I liked how the boxing sequences were not over dramatized, no mouth pieces flying across the ring, it looked like there was an effort to just keep them as true to the actual fights as possible. I also enjoyed the moments of comedy. For a story full of drama there was a good amount of well-timed comedy, mostly provided by Teller. Visually they did a good job of making the film feel like you were in late 80s and early 90s. There were a couple of slow scenes but overall the film flowed really well.
Overall this was a well done boxing genre movie. Good story, great acting performances and solid directing.
After the biggest win of his career when everything appears to be going Vinny, his families and Rooney’s way, there is a terrible car accident and Vinny suffers a broken neck. The doctor tells him that he may never walk again, let alone box. With everyone telling him that his boxing career is over, Vinny is single-mindedly determined to do everything he can to get back into the ring. He opts to not have surgery in hopes that his neck can heal on its own and he can return to champion ship form. He has to convince Rooney to train him, find someone willing to fight him, and has to overcome his once over bearing father being unwilling be in his corner for the first time in his life. Even with a mountain of obstacles in his way, he begins his quest to get back into the ring and show everyone that he can do the impossible and regain his past form.
Writer and Director Ben Younger (Prime and Boiler Room) does an excellent job with this inspirational true story. The supporting cast provide solid performances, especial Eckhart and Hinds, but Miles Teller’s performance is what really makes this a fun film to watch. He really seemed to fit into this role really well. His performance was both compelling and fun. There were several times that the film showed actual old footage and footage just made to look old and you really couldn’t tell if it was Teller or the real Vinny Pazienza on the screen. I liked how the boxing sequences were not over dramatized, no mouth pieces flying across the ring, it looked like there was an effort to just keep them as true to the actual fights as possible. I also enjoyed the moments of comedy. For a story full of drama there was a good amount of well-timed comedy, mostly provided by Teller. Visually they did a good job of making the film feel like you were in late 80s and early 90s. There were a couple of slow scenes but overall the film flowed really well.
Overall this was a well done boxing genre movie. Good story, great acting performances and solid directing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Let The Dead Keep Their Secrets in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Let The DEAD Keep Their Secrets by Rosemary Simpson brings to life New York City during the 1880s in a historical mystery. It is rich in the culture of the time with a riveting Colombo type crime. Readers know who has done it and seek clues with the characters to find the proof.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (2022) in Movies
Jan 30, 2022
The mimicking raptor (1 more)
The, "power of our spleens," line of dialogue.
Horrendously ugly animation. (2 more)
A terribly boring screenplay.
Humor that is so painfully unfunny.
The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild is the first Disney produced film of the franchise and the first Ice Age film to go directly to streaming. None of the original cast members return other than Simon Pegg as Buck Wild. Scrat is nowhere to be found and the animation is a noticeable downgrade. This project began with the intention of being a new Ice Age TV series, but was then repurposed into an 81-minute feature-length film.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated American Vampire, Vol. 6 in Books
Jul 21, 2019 (Updated Jul 21, 2019)
Not all the art works (for me) (1 more)
Adult content.... but if you made it this far in the series, that's not a surprise
Filler Anthology, but still fun...
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago.
So, it has come to this. The sixth and latest collection of American Vampire comics. Now it’s not just my library’s slow acquisition policies holding me back, but the fact that there haven’t been any more published yet! Apparently the creators put the book on hiatus for a while, but they’ve at least started publishing again. I just have to wait for it to hit the collections….This particular collection is a couple of one-shots they put out in the meantime to keep our appetites whetted–one from the main American Vampire team, one with them letting a whole bunch of other comics creators play in their sandbox. Obviously, this review could spoil events from the previous collections.
First off, we have THE LONG ROAD TO HELL. Snyder and Albuquerque set out the story for this one together, with Albuquerque taking over to script and draw the story. Billy Bob and Jo are the Bonnie and Clyde of petty thieves, picking pockets by night to add to their stash. They’re hoping to have enough soon to cover the cost of renting a chapel, but one fateful encounter with a vampire coven recruitment team and everything changes…not for the better, I’m afraid. Jasper Miller is a young orphan, favorite target of a group of bullies. It seems that young Jasper is a very insightful young man, and some of what he knows makes these bullies very nervous, and he decides that the open road would be safer for him than the old orphanage. Vampire hunter Travis Kidd we’ve already met back in Vol. IV, and it’s good to see that he survived the ambush he willingly dove into at the end of that book. Seems to have picked up a katana somewhere in the interim too, which is always cool. Fate has these four on a collision course, and blood will be spilled by the time they reach the end of the road….
Moving on to the American Vampire Anthology, we open with the frame story by Snyder and Albuquerque. THE MAN COMES AROUND is set in 1967 as Skinner Sweet hides out in the middle of nowhere, hoping to avoid the major events he can sense just over the horizon. Seems there’s always someone trying to kill him, though…. Jason Aaron and Declan Shalvey then enlighten us as to what really happened on Roanoke Island in THE LOST COLONY. Here’s a hint, vampires were involved. We then move on to BLEEDING KANSAS, where Albuquerque puts down his pencil and takes a shot at writing the story, leaving the art to Ivo Milazzo. Set against that tumultuous time and place, Albuquerque and Milazzo set down for us a tale of what I can only assume are Henry Jones’ grandparents. Next up, Jeff Lemire and Ray Fawkes serve up a tale of terror in the frozen north with CANADIAN VAMPIRE as ex-Mountie-turned-bounty-hunter Jack Warhammer is hired to find out what happened to a German fur trading expedition missing in the wild. Becky Cloonan handles both the writing and art for GREED, starring Skinner Sweet and featuring his first encounter with those crazy folks who hail from a place called “Hollywood….” Francesco Francavilla then pulls the same trick for THE PRODUCERS, detailing the birth of a star as he makes a shady deal in exchange for fame and fortune. Gail Simone and Tula Lotay treat us to Hattie Hargrove’s origin story in ESSENCE OF LIFE, showing us just what happened to her that made her willing to screw over her best friend in the world. Gabriel Ba and Fabio Moon share both the writing and artist credits for LAST NIGHT, as a lounge singer describes to a reporter the events leading up to the previous evening’s massacre at the club. Finally, Greg Rucka and JP Leon tell the tale of a dying drunk and the lowlifes who try and shanghai him in PORTLAND, 1940.
On the whole, I really enjoyed this as per the usual for this series. The writing was stellar, and the anthology format really served well for the world being depicted. As with any comics anthology, there’s a wide variety of artistic styles represented, and some of those styles I’m not really a fan of, but that’s largely a matter of taste. I could sit here and tell you that I really wasn’t a fan of Ivo Milazzo’s art on BLEEDING KANSAS (which is true), but the next guy might have loved it. I could laud Tula Lotay’s work on ESSENCE OF LIFE (also true), but the next guy may not have been a fan. That’s kind of how it works–peoples’ tastes are pretty subjective. I did enjoy getting into Hattie’s head a bit more than we were able to back when she was introduced, and Skinner Sweet’s adventures are always fun–I’ve mentioned before my weakness for antiheroes. As a historian, Roanoke’s lost colony is always a fascinating topic, and a number of the plot twists contained here were very satisfying if not always surprising. I really can’t wait for the next volume to come out so I can see the payoff to some of the plot threads being set up both here and in the teaser from the end of volume V….
CONTENT: R-rated language. Brutal, bloody vampire violence–these aren’t sparkly, angst-ridden pretty boys, these are monsters through and through. Some explicit and implicit sexual content, including what more or less constitutes a rape. No real occult content, as there isn’t a spiritual element to this version of vampirism.
Original review link: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/review-american-vampire-volume-vi-by-scott-snyder-rafael-albuquerque/
So, it has come to this. The sixth and latest collection of American Vampire comics. Now it’s not just my library’s slow acquisition policies holding me back, but the fact that there haven’t been any more published yet! Apparently the creators put the book on hiatus for a while, but they’ve at least started publishing again. I just have to wait for it to hit the collections….This particular collection is a couple of one-shots they put out in the meantime to keep our appetites whetted–one from the main American Vampire team, one with them letting a whole bunch of other comics creators play in their sandbox. Obviously, this review could spoil events from the previous collections.
First off, we have THE LONG ROAD TO HELL. Snyder and Albuquerque set out the story for this one together, with Albuquerque taking over to script and draw the story. Billy Bob and Jo are the Bonnie and Clyde of petty thieves, picking pockets by night to add to their stash. They’re hoping to have enough soon to cover the cost of renting a chapel, but one fateful encounter with a vampire coven recruitment team and everything changes…not for the better, I’m afraid. Jasper Miller is a young orphan, favorite target of a group of bullies. It seems that young Jasper is a very insightful young man, and some of what he knows makes these bullies very nervous, and he decides that the open road would be safer for him than the old orphanage. Vampire hunter Travis Kidd we’ve already met back in Vol. IV, and it’s good to see that he survived the ambush he willingly dove into at the end of that book. Seems to have picked up a katana somewhere in the interim too, which is always cool. Fate has these four on a collision course, and blood will be spilled by the time they reach the end of the road….
Moving on to the American Vampire Anthology, we open with the frame story by Snyder and Albuquerque. THE MAN COMES AROUND is set in 1967 as Skinner Sweet hides out in the middle of nowhere, hoping to avoid the major events he can sense just over the horizon. Seems there’s always someone trying to kill him, though…. Jason Aaron and Declan Shalvey then enlighten us as to what really happened on Roanoke Island in THE LOST COLONY. Here’s a hint, vampires were involved. We then move on to BLEEDING KANSAS, where Albuquerque puts down his pencil and takes a shot at writing the story, leaving the art to Ivo Milazzo. Set against that tumultuous time and place, Albuquerque and Milazzo set down for us a tale of what I can only assume are Henry Jones’ grandparents. Next up, Jeff Lemire and Ray Fawkes serve up a tale of terror in the frozen north with CANADIAN VAMPIRE as ex-Mountie-turned-bounty-hunter Jack Warhammer is hired to find out what happened to a German fur trading expedition missing in the wild. Becky Cloonan handles both the writing and art for GREED, starring Skinner Sweet and featuring his first encounter with those crazy folks who hail from a place called “Hollywood….” Francesco Francavilla then pulls the same trick for THE PRODUCERS, detailing the birth of a star as he makes a shady deal in exchange for fame and fortune. Gail Simone and Tula Lotay treat us to Hattie Hargrove’s origin story in ESSENCE OF LIFE, showing us just what happened to her that made her willing to screw over her best friend in the world. Gabriel Ba and Fabio Moon share both the writing and artist credits for LAST NIGHT, as a lounge singer describes to a reporter the events leading up to the previous evening’s massacre at the club. Finally, Greg Rucka and JP Leon tell the tale of a dying drunk and the lowlifes who try and shanghai him in PORTLAND, 1940.
On the whole, I really enjoyed this as per the usual for this series. The writing was stellar, and the anthology format really served well for the world being depicted. As with any comics anthology, there’s a wide variety of artistic styles represented, and some of those styles I’m not really a fan of, but that’s largely a matter of taste. I could sit here and tell you that I really wasn’t a fan of Ivo Milazzo’s art on BLEEDING KANSAS (which is true), but the next guy might have loved it. I could laud Tula Lotay’s work on ESSENCE OF LIFE (also true), but the next guy may not have been a fan. That’s kind of how it works–peoples’ tastes are pretty subjective. I did enjoy getting into Hattie’s head a bit more than we were able to back when she was introduced, and Skinner Sweet’s adventures are always fun–I’ve mentioned before my weakness for antiheroes. As a historian, Roanoke’s lost colony is always a fascinating topic, and a number of the plot twists contained here were very satisfying if not always surprising. I really can’t wait for the next volume to come out so I can see the payoff to some of the plot threads being set up both here and in the teaser from the end of volume V….
CONTENT: R-rated language. Brutal, bloody vampire violence–these aren’t sparkly, angst-ridden pretty boys, these are monsters through and through. Some explicit and implicit sexual content, including what more or less constitutes a rape. No real occult content, as there isn’t a spiritual element to this version of vampirism.
Original review link: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/review-american-vampire-volume-vi-by-scott-snyder-rafael-albuquerque/