Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bridge of Spies (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the 1950s the world was locked in the midst of the Cold War where paranoia, mutual distrust, and fear, combined with the threat of nuclear annihilation between the United States and Soviet Union. In “Bridge of Spies” Director Steven Spielberg has once again used history as a basis for a compelling story filled with real characters and emotions.
When suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested New York Tax Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to provide Abel with a competent defense so the United States can show the world that Abel was given a fair trial and due process despite the charges against him.
Although hesitant what defending an accused spy will bring hatred to him and his family, Donovan takes up the task and despite a judge and process that wants to railroad this to a conviction in spite of possible illegal search and seizure, Donovan is able to avoid the death penalty for his client and even files an appeal before the Supreme Court as he is convinced his client was convicted on evidence that was illegally obtained.
At the same time, a young Air Force pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is shot down by the Russians in a U-2 spy plane and is paraded by the Russians on television before being convicted of being a Spy.
This situation increases and already tense situation and when the East German government starts to build the Berlin Wall and takes an American student prisoner for espionage, back channels contact Donovan to discuss a possible exchange of prisoners.
Now since this cannot be done by any official sanction of the U.S. or Russian governments, Donovan must in secret travel to Berlin and meet with figures to obtain a release. The U.S. wants Powers and considers the student an expendable throw in but Donovan is resolute to bring them both home in exchange for his client Abel.
The film is beautifully shot and masterfully acted with top performance by Hanks and the leads. The events are fairly close to the historical accounts I studied as a child and Spielberg is wise to let the story and the characters drive the film and not create over impassioned speeches or tacked on action sequences to build the drama.
The film is an early contender for several Oscar nominations as far as I am concerned as is one of the best movies of 2015.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/16/bridge-of-spies/
When suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested New York Tax Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to provide Abel with a competent defense so the United States can show the world that Abel was given a fair trial and due process despite the charges against him.
Although hesitant what defending an accused spy will bring hatred to him and his family, Donovan takes up the task and despite a judge and process that wants to railroad this to a conviction in spite of possible illegal search and seizure, Donovan is able to avoid the death penalty for his client and even files an appeal before the Supreme Court as he is convinced his client was convicted on evidence that was illegally obtained.
At the same time, a young Air Force pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is shot down by the Russians in a U-2 spy plane and is paraded by the Russians on television before being convicted of being a Spy.
This situation increases and already tense situation and when the East German government starts to build the Berlin Wall and takes an American student prisoner for espionage, back channels contact Donovan to discuss a possible exchange of prisoners.
Now since this cannot be done by any official sanction of the U.S. or Russian governments, Donovan must in secret travel to Berlin and meet with figures to obtain a release. The U.S. wants Powers and considers the student an expendable throw in but Donovan is resolute to bring them both home in exchange for his client Abel.
The film is beautifully shot and masterfully acted with top performance by Hanks and the leads. The events are fairly close to the historical accounts I studied as a child and Spielberg is wise to let the story and the characters drive the film and not create over impassioned speeches or tacked on action sequences to build the drama.
The film is an early contender for several Oscar nominations as far as I am concerned as is one of the best movies of 2015.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/16/bridge-of-spies/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jul 25, 2021
Script this time appeals to both Kids and Adults (1 more)
Gleeson, Byrne and Oyelowo are great together
This bunny has legs
I appreciate I'm over 2 months late in seeing "Peter Rabbit 2". But the grandkids were staying for the weekend and wanted to see it again!
Positives:
- This time the movie manages - "Paddington 2" style - to find a good balance between slapstick jokes that appeal to the target younger audience (my grandkids were roaring at certain bits) and the 'dragalong' adult audience. Some of these are gorgeously surreal - like the skiing badger in the Alps as a "university prank". It certainly passes the "6 laugh" test for a comedy, and generated a couple of good guffaws (the Austin Powers landing in the Aston Martin and the subsequent take-off was one for me).
- In the first movie, James Corden's voicing of Peter Rabbit tended to grate with me enormously. Here he gamely plays up to that, accepting that he is a bit of a "marmite" character with a lot of people. It's a fine comic moment.
- Rose Byrne and Domnhall Gleeson make a cute and watchable couple. (Rose Byrne could read the phone directory for me). They are well supported here by David Oyelowo ("Don't look into his eyes") who is the least villainous villain in any movie in recent memory! Also fun are trying to spot the guest voice artistes who include Margot Robbie, Sia, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Neill, Lennie James and Hayley Atwell.
Negatives:
- A few of the jokes don't quite land (a one-note cockeral story, for example, is overplayed).
- As I've been doing some Supporting Artist work recently, I've become obsessed with observing Extras and the continuity of Extras in shots. There are a few inconsistencies in the mix on this one!
Summary Thoughts: It's fair to say (although I never actually wrote a full review for it) that I was NOT a fan of the original Peter Rabbit movie from 2018. Corden grated; there was not enough for adult viewers and some of the included scenes were highly questionable: try explaining to a three-year-old why Peter was stabbing a dead old man in the eye with his finger! I've avoided watching it again on the TV like the plague.
This sequel was, I thought, much better, being entertaining for both kids and adults. I wonder if I now watched the first movie I might find it, in hindsight, more palatable? Perhaps I will give it a try sometime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- This time the movie manages - "Paddington 2" style - to find a good balance between slapstick jokes that appeal to the target younger audience (my grandkids were roaring at certain bits) and the 'dragalong' adult audience. Some of these are gorgeously surreal - like the skiing badger in the Alps as a "university prank". It certainly passes the "6 laugh" test for a comedy, and generated a couple of good guffaws (the Austin Powers landing in the Aston Martin and the subsequent take-off was one for me).
- In the first movie, James Corden's voicing of Peter Rabbit tended to grate with me enormously. Here he gamely plays up to that, accepting that he is a bit of a "marmite" character with a lot of people. It's a fine comic moment.
- Rose Byrne and Domnhall Gleeson make a cute and watchable couple. (Rose Byrne could read the phone directory for me). They are well supported here by David Oyelowo ("Don't look into his eyes") who is the least villainous villain in any movie in recent memory! Also fun are trying to spot the guest voice artistes who include Margot Robbie, Sia, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Neill, Lennie James and Hayley Atwell.
Negatives:
- A few of the jokes don't quite land (a one-note cockeral story, for example, is overplayed).
- As I've been doing some Supporting Artist work recently, I've become obsessed with observing Extras and the continuity of Extras in shots. There are a few inconsistencies in the mix on this one!
Summary Thoughts: It's fair to say (although I never actually wrote a full review for it) that I was NOT a fan of the original Peter Rabbit movie from 2018. Corden grated; there was not enough for adult viewers and some of the included scenes were highly questionable: try explaining to a three-year-old why Peter was stabbing a dead old man in the eye with his finger! I've avoided watching it again on the TV like the plague.
This sequel was, I thought, much better, being entertaining for both kids and adults. I wonder if I now watched the first movie I might find it, in hindsight, more palatable? Perhaps I will give it a try sometime.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Oct 25, 2018 (Updated Oct 25, 2018)
Sublime performance from Rami Malek (1 more)
Sound mixing
They Will Rock You
I feel like I should preface this review with some context. Queen were the first band that I was properly into and the Bohemian Rhapsody/These Are The Days Of Our Loves double A side CD was the first piece of music that I ever bought with my own money. I have loved Queen's music for the vast majority of my life and I have grown up watching their concerts and music videos. I have been waiting for this movie to be made for a long time.
So did it meet my lofty expectations? Well, that depends on what aspects you choose to highlight. If you are asking me if Rami Malek did a good job portraying Freddie Mercury, then I would reply; that is the understatement of the century. This performance is the best I've seen so far this year. There were points that I genuinely forgot that I wasn't watching the real Freddie onscreen, Malek totally disappeared into the persona and if there is any justice, the academy will recognise that come Oscar nomination time. Not only did he capture Freddie's onstage mannerisms, but even the subtle way that Freddie would shift his eyes or lick his lips during interviews etc was absolutely spot on. In terms of the singing, I believe the method used was that Malek would sing into a computer and Freddie's voice was then added over the top, then it was manipulated to where it best resembled Freddie's vocal. If this film deserves another Oscar nod, it's for the sound mixing. They managed to recreate Freddie's unique vocal range perfectly and the lip syncing is also lined up incredibly well.
The rest of the cast are great too. The rest of the band were well cast, especially Gwilym Lee as Brian May. I really enjoyed the chemistry and camaraderie between the band members too. I also enjoyed what Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander and an unrecognisable Mike Myers brought to the film. Lucy Boynton was also believable as Freddie's one true love, Mary Austin and she and Malek brought a new dimension to Mary's and Freddie's relationship that I had never really thought too much about.
Could the movie have went further than it did in terms of portraying the hedonism went on in Freddie's life? Yes, it definitely could have and that was one of my main concerns going in. I was concerned regarding the film's 12A rating and wondered how they were going to get around this and still show the sexually driven, intense life that Freddie led. Thankfully, I felt that the movie still managed to contain enough implications and allusions to the more adult stuff in the story that you were able to fill in the blanks without feeling robbed of too much of the narrative.
Unfortunately, there was a fairly important part in the movie where the sound abruptly cut out in my cinema hall for about 30 seconds, this obviously isn't the movie's fault, but it did detract from my initial viewing.
Overall, I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. It catalogued Queen's exceptional inventory of hits and did a fantastic job in casting the right actor to portray a modern day icon. The other actors that rounded out the cast helped to sell the whole movie and the production was very well done in terms of recreating the talent and energy that this band were famous for.
So did it meet my lofty expectations? Well, that depends on what aspects you choose to highlight. If you are asking me if Rami Malek did a good job portraying Freddie Mercury, then I would reply; that is the understatement of the century. This performance is the best I've seen so far this year. There were points that I genuinely forgot that I wasn't watching the real Freddie onscreen, Malek totally disappeared into the persona and if there is any justice, the academy will recognise that come Oscar nomination time. Not only did he capture Freddie's onstage mannerisms, but even the subtle way that Freddie would shift his eyes or lick his lips during interviews etc was absolutely spot on. In terms of the singing, I believe the method used was that Malek would sing into a computer and Freddie's voice was then added over the top, then it was manipulated to where it best resembled Freddie's vocal. If this film deserves another Oscar nod, it's for the sound mixing. They managed to recreate Freddie's unique vocal range perfectly and the lip syncing is also lined up incredibly well.
The rest of the cast are great too. The rest of the band were well cast, especially Gwilym Lee as Brian May. I really enjoyed the chemistry and camaraderie between the band members too. I also enjoyed what Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander and an unrecognisable Mike Myers brought to the film. Lucy Boynton was also believable as Freddie's one true love, Mary Austin and she and Malek brought a new dimension to Mary's and Freddie's relationship that I had never really thought too much about.
Could the movie have went further than it did in terms of portraying the hedonism went on in Freddie's life? Yes, it definitely could have and that was one of my main concerns going in. I was concerned regarding the film's 12A rating and wondered how they were going to get around this and still show the sexually driven, intense life that Freddie led. Thankfully, I felt that the movie still managed to contain enough implications and allusions to the more adult stuff in the story that you were able to fill in the blanks without feeling robbed of too much of the narrative.
Unfortunately, there was a fairly important part in the movie where the sound abruptly cut out in my cinema hall for about 30 seconds, this obviously isn't the movie's fault, but it did detract from my initial viewing.
Overall, I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. It catalogued Queen's exceptional inventory of hits and did a fantastic job in casting the right actor to portray a modern day icon. The other actors that rounded out the cast helped to sell the whole movie and the production was very well done in terms of recreating the talent and energy that this band were famous for.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is out all night drinking and comes home to her boyfriend Tim (Dan Stevens). Tim is headed to work and tired of Gloria’s partying ways. He’s packed her bags and tells her to not be there when he comes home from work. With no job, no place to live, and her life seemingly in at its low point she decided to go back to her home town. She is able to stay in her childhood home which is empty and she finds herself sleeping on the floor. Gloria heads out to get an air mattress to make her a little more comfortable. On her way back she runs into a childhood friend Oscar (Jason Sudeikis). He invites her to the bar he owns and despite the fact drinking ruined her relationship and is the reason she finds herself in this position she agrees.
Gloria winds up spending all night drinking with Oscar and his buddies. She stumbles home and passes out. She is awoken the next day by a phone call telling her about a giant monster that has appeared in Seoul. Gloria, Oscar and his two friends (Tim Blake and Austin Stowell) meet up again that night to talk about the Earth shaking event and wind up drinking all night, again. Gloria wakes up in the morning and again the monster appears in Seoul. It showed up at the exact time and the exact same spot in Seoul. As Gloria watches the footage of the newest sighting a strange thing occurs, the monster scratches its head in a very familiar way. Ever since Gloria was little she had a tick of scratching the top of her head in a particular way. Now on TV the monster is doing the same thing. She looks at the footage from the last sighting and notices that the monster looks to be carrying something, exactly like she was carrying the mattress she bought the morning before through the park. Is she the monster? If she is why is it only appearing in Seoul?
Colossal is a very interesting and original take on the “monster” movie. I hesitate to describe any more of the movie in the narrative because I really was surprised by the direction the movie took and think anyone why watches it should not have a preconceived idea of what is going to happen. Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis are real good. Sudeikis really surprised me in his role. It wasn’t his typical character and I thought he played it really well. The supporting cast is okay but not particularly memorable. But the story really was focused on the two main characters. I thought the film was funny and dark. I definitely laughed throughout the film. There were times I questioned where the story was going. It didn’t transition from one point to the next very well. But I thought it did a good job of bringing everything together in the end. The visuals were good but not great but that is to be expected with an independent film. Another thing I will remember from this film was the soundtrack. The music seem to really follow the tone of the movie well.
This is a movie I will definitely find myself watching again. The story was interesting and, minus some sloppy plot transitions, was really well done.
Gloria winds up spending all night drinking with Oscar and his buddies. She stumbles home and passes out. She is awoken the next day by a phone call telling her about a giant monster that has appeared in Seoul. Gloria, Oscar and his two friends (Tim Blake and Austin Stowell) meet up again that night to talk about the Earth shaking event and wind up drinking all night, again. Gloria wakes up in the morning and again the monster appears in Seoul. It showed up at the exact time and the exact same spot in Seoul. As Gloria watches the footage of the newest sighting a strange thing occurs, the monster scratches its head in a very familiar way. Ever since Gloria was little she had a tick of scratching the top of her head in a particular way. Now on TV the monster is doing the same thing. She looks at the footage from the last sighting and notices that the monster looks to be carrying something, exactly like she was carrying the mattress she bought the morning before through the park. Is she the monster? If she is why is it only appearing in Seoul?
Colossal is a very interesting and original take on the “monster” movie. I hesitate to describe any more of the movie in the narrative because I really was surprised by the direction the movie took and think anyone why watches it should not have a preconceived idea of what is going to happen. Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis are real good. Sudeikis really surprised me in his role. It wasn’t his typical character and I thought he played it really well. The supporting cast is okay but not particularly memorable. But the story really was focused on the two main characters. I thought the film was funny and dark. I definitely laughed throughout the film. There were times I questioned where the story was going. It didn’t transition from one point to the next very well. But I thought it did a good job of bringing everything together in the end. The visuals were good but not great but that is to be expected with an independent film. Another thing I will remember from this film was the soundtrack. The music seem to really follow the tone of the movie well.
This is a movie I will definitely find myself watching again. The story was interesting and, minus some sloppy plot transitions, was really well done.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Dec 4, 2018
Beautiful humongous world (5 more)
Tons to do. Hours & hours of stuff.
Great acting and characters
Lots of Easter eggs
Wonderful music
Great story
That feckin robin (2 more)
Big world means lots of riding
New Austin is kind of dead
Rockstar let my mama's baby grow up to be a cowboy
Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to play until I completed the game & today, I finally did. I've also played a few hours of the online beta, but I'll get to that later.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Seven Dollar Paycheck by Arms Akimbo in Music
Jun 17, 2019
Arms Akimbo is a four-piece indie-rock band. Not too long ago, they released a heartfelt alternative tune, entitled, “Pitchfork”.
“I feel like the song is a letter to my band and my loved ones back home. I wanted to tell the people in my life that even though it’s not the easiest path that we’re on, it’s the right path and we’re not going to give up. We don’t play music because we want to. We play music because we have to. And, as we say in the song, ‘if we’re patient then we’ll make it eventually’.”
‘Pitchfork’ tells an interesting tale of a young musician who is out on the road, on tour in west New Mexico, very far away from a special woman who has his heart.
Apparently, it was hard for him to goodbye to her, and shortly after his departure, he felt that he had let her down. Her emotional wellbeing made him question if she will still want him when he returns home.
While on tour, he thinks about her text message which states how he always let love slip away. Deep down, he wishes she’s wrong about that statement.
Later, things aren’t the same and a tad bit quiet when they talk on the phone. Also, the thoughts of losing her and not fulfilling his musical goals scares him. But he remains patient and hopes that everything works out in his favor.
“I wrote ‘Pitchfork’ on a non-stop drive back to LA from Austin, Texas, after SXSW 2018. Facing the existential dread that comes with finishing a tour, I couldn’t help but think about the way that being a musician connects you with so many people while simultaneously being extremely isolating. Music is our form of communication to reach people who might be feeling the same way that we are and we use that to build a community. But functioning as a musician means being on the road and being away from the people that you care about. This dichotomy can be tough to balance.”
Arms Akimbo’s consists of Peter Schrupp (vocals, guitar), Chris Kalil (guitar, vocals), Matthew Sutton (drums), and Colin Boppell (bass).
They labeled their single ‘Pitchfork’ in reference to the lyrics at the end of the song.
The likable tune encourages those in the music industry to never give up. Also, it narrates the existential dread which comes with finishing a tour.
“The song was written in two parts, with the first section functioning almost like a tour diary, a vignette of our life on the road. The second part is more of a personal plea to my loved ones to stick by me on this journey. It’s also my attempt to explain why I have to play music and why it’s so deeply instilled into who I am.”
‘Pitchfork’ contains a relatable storyline, warm vocal tones, and summery instrumentation flavored with melodic guitars.
The song is featured on Arms Akimbo’s latest EP, entitled, “Seven Dollar Paycheck”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/arms-akimbo-pitchfork/
“I feel like the song is a letter to my band and my loved ones back home. I wanted to tell the people in my life that even though it’s not the easiest path that we’re on, it’s the right path and we’re not going to give up. We don’t play music because we want to. We play music because we have to. And, as we say in the song, ‘if we’re patient then we’ll make it eventually’.”
‘Pitchfork’ tells an interesting tale of a young musician who is out on the road, on tour in west New Mexico, very far away from a special woman who has his heart.
Apparently, it was hard for him to goodbye to her, and shortly after his departure, he felt that he had let her down. Her emotional wellbeing made him question if she will still want him when he returns home.
While on tour, he thinks about her text message which states how he always let love slip away. Deep down, he wishes she’s wrong about that statement.
Later, things aren’t the same and a tad bit quiet when they talk on the phone. Also, the thoughts of losing her and not fulfilling his musical goals scares him. But he remains patient and hopes that everything works out in his favor.
“I wrote ‘Pitchfork’ on a non-stop drive back to LA from Austin, Texas, after SXSW 2018. Facing the existential dread that comes with finishing a tour, I couldn’t help but think about the way that being a musician connects you with so many people while simultaneously being extremely isolating. Music is our form of communication to reach people who might be feeling the same way that we are and we use that to build a community. But functioning as a musician means being on the road and being away from the people that you care about. This dichotomy can be tough to balance.”
Arms Akimbo’s consists of Peter Schrupp (vocals, guitar), Chris Kalil (guitar, vocals), Matthew Sutton (drums), and Colin Boppell (bass).
They labeled their single ‘Pitchfork’ in reference to the lyrics at the end of the song.
The likable tune encourages those in the music industry to never give up. Also, it narrates the existential dread which comes with finishing a tour.
“The song was written in two parts, with the first section functioning almost like a tour diary, a vignette of our life on the road. The second part is more of a personal plea to my loved ones to stick by me on this journey. It’s also my attempt to explain why I have to play music and why it’s so deeply instilled into who I am.”
‘Pitchfork’ contains a relatable storyline, warm vocal tones, and summery instrumentation flavored with melodic guitars.
The song is featured on Arms Akimbo’s latest EP, entitled, “Seven Dollar Paycheck”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/arms-akimbo-pitchfork/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Nov 11, 2022
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Longest Yard (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Continuing the current trend of remakes, Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production company set their sights on remaking the classic prison football film The Longest Yard. Like most projects that Sandler puts his Midas touch upon, this too has some moments of true gold.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.