Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
When the trailers for this landed I knew I needed to see it, despite a large reservation it looked good and I was excited to see what they'd done with the story.
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Cecilia has made the break from her abusive boyfriend and is trying to retake her life. It isn't easy when she's worried he'll be waiting for her or following the people she knows. That all changes when her sister tells her that he's been found dead, she can finally come out of hiding.
It's liberating, but she soon feels like his death might not have been as final as everyone thought. The creak of a floorboard, a noise in the next room, she's not alone. As terrible things start to befall her can she prove there's something to her claims or will everyone just think she's lost her mind?
I was not disappointed by this film, it really was a thrilling watch. It amazed me that you can achieve things like this on a (relatively) teeny tiny budget. I haven't seen or gone looking for details on how they did the invisible bits of the Invisible Man yet but my first instinct would be a morph suit and some wires (if you know please do let me know in the comments)... I'm guessing that inventing a real invisible suit was definitely out of their budget.
The effects never looked bad, there was one moment where it didn't entirely look real but that was during the very first physical interaction with him and I'm inclined to put it down to my surprise. I do want to go and see this again though so we'll see how it fairs then. I'm going to skip to another topic that crosses with this one...
The scares... normally I find horror films with obvious jump scares easier to deal with, it's a classic, and mainly predictable, device. There were a lot of times I was scared during the screening, but not in the way I expected. Those jump scares were there and I was feeling rather confident I'd do fine... I didn't do fine. They managed to scare me in a way I've never quite experienced before. Even the moment we see in the trailer where Cecilia is peering out of the attic got me. The build up to all these moments and the anticipation made them so much more than simple jumps and that really impressed me. The moments where he's revealed from behind his invisibility blend in really well with everything despite the fact your brain is telling you it isn't possible... or is it?!
I loved the camerawork. You'd pan out to an empty space and wonder if it was really empty, a doorway, an empty corridor... the way we zoom out to view the whole room with the realisation that he could be anywhere is an excellent way to make the audience as paranoid as she is.
When Cecilia makes her escape from Adrian she is taken in by James and his daughter Sydney, played by Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid. The dynamic the three of them have together is great, James is such a strong person when it comes to trying to help Cecilia get back to a normal life. That was a great thing to see and Hodge plays it perfectly. I'm also relieved that in the whole film we're never made to see a romance between the two, it's friendship and survival, nothing more.
Elisabeth Moss in the lead role had been my initial hesitation, I'm not really a fan. She was good, if she hadn't been I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie so much, but I felt like she managed to make Cecilia a little too manic at times. Occasionally that worked, and since I saw the film I've been wondering what sort of difference it would have made had she not been that way.
I liked that there were nods to things throughout the film, those little references were fun to look for but I wish they'd kept it out of the trailers. The bandaged man had no context in the trailer apart from a little flag for people who know previous versions. I can see trying to appeal to them with it but I'm not convinced the rest of the trailer would have anyway so what was the point?
The Invisible Man was much more that I had hoped for, it created so much suspense out of an empty room and some clever angles that I was just ever so slightly paranoid by the time I got home.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-invisible-man-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Transcendence (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
First time director and Academy award-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Joe Wright’s 2011 film version of Hanna starring Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana is an odd movie. It isn’t bad. It just doesn’t work. The idea at its heart is great, as are some of the action sequences, there is just something over styled about it that is jarring. I’ve been back to it a few times to see if age helps, but it really doesn’t – Hanna the movie is an admirable failure.
So when Amazon announced they were resurrecting the character, the basic story and idea and the essential vibe of Hanna in 2019 as a series… I was pretty sceptical. I doubt to this day I would have watched it at all if I hadn’t stumbled across the trailer and been arrested by the presence of this young girl who had been cast in the main role. She looked wild and vulnerable at the same time, her eyes were piercing and something about her was just jumping off the screen. I went to IMDb as is my habit to find out who she was. Turns out her name was Esme Creed-Miles, the daughter of actors Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles.
Wow, yes, that made sense! I love Samantha Morton in anything – have done ever since she played Joanne Barnes in Cracker, aged 17. She has a ferocious beauty and edge of danger about her that is entirely feminine but also fearlessly strong and individual. Her roles have always been diverse, because she is capable of total power or intense vulnerability, sometimes in the same character, all laced with a focused intelligence that is quite rare. So, I had basically seen all of that in a two minute trailer staring a chip off the old block. Now I was excited to see it!
I wouldn’t say the set up of season one blew me away, but it did have enough going for it to keep me watching. Not as a binge watch, which usually indicates how much I am into something, but for sure as a steady desire to come back for more in time. Joel Kinnaman made a decent replacement as Erik, the father figure who teaches Hanna to survive, and Mireille Enos was doing a lovely job in the Cate Blanchett role as an ambiguous villain / ally. But it was all about Esme Creed-Miles, who was consistently delivering a performance of mesmerising quality – I could not take my eyes off her. As with the character she was playing there was some learning to be done in understanding the rules of this world, but she had obviously been trained well by a parent with huge experience in these things.
Season one ends with a tantalising cliffhanger, and there didn’t seem to be much of a wait to get back into it in season two, which felt more assured and more mature from the start. It came to me at a weird time in lockdown where I had no internet or means to watch anything I hadn’t downloaded already, which was a handful of films I’d already seen and season two of Hanna. I ended up watching each episode at least three times each, sometimes in a row, and sometimes going back… it just became a real companion to me in an odd way. I got hooked on it in a way I would find hard to describe – sometimes a show does that to us, even when objectively we know it isn’t the best, or most original, thing ever made.
It isn’t badly made by any means, but it is perhaps a little predictable at times. It has a high production standard, but still feels very much like TV and not a feature film in episodes. The action choreography is always great, as is the overall story arch. What is perhaps a little lacking is consistently strong dialogue, directing and supporting acting, especially when the cast of season two depends on a lot of teenagers, none of which have half the natural ability of Creed-Miles.
My main feeling about Hanna is to state I really enjoyed it, without overstating that it is any kind of genius, or is treading any new artistic ground. It is just a solid entertainment worth the time, and I will definitely be looking forward to season three. The entire project has a strong female core, and that is worth seeing in 2021. I suspect the main thing watching this will bring, however, is the genesis of a future superstar. Mark my words – Esme Creed-Miles just turned 21 and the film world is ready for the next Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence or… Samantha Morton.
So when Amazon announced they were resurrecting the character, the basic story and idea and the essential vibe of Hanna in 2019 as a series… I was pretty sceptical. I doubt to this day I would have watched it at all if I hadn’t stumbled across the trailer and been arrested by the presence of this young girl who had been cast in the main role. She looked wild and vulnerable at the same time, her eyes were piercing and something about her was just jumping off the screen. I went to IMDb as is my habit to find out who she was. Turns out her name was Esme Creed-Miles, the daughter of actors Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles.
Wow, yes, that made sense! I love Samantha Morton in anything – have done ever since she played Joanne Barnes in Cracker, aged 17. She has a ferocious beauty and edge of danger about her that is entirely feminine but also fearlessly strong and individual. Her roles have always been diverse, because she is capable of total power or intense vulnerability, sometimes in the same character, all laced with a focused intelligence that is quite rare. So, I had basically seen all of that in a two minute trailer staring a chip off the old block. Now I was excited to see it!
I wouldn’t say the set up of season one blew me away, but it did have enough going for it to keep me watching. Not as a binge watch, which usually indicates how much I am into something, but for sure as a steady desire to come back for more in time. Joel Kinnaman made a decent replacement as Erik, the father figure who teaches Hanna to survive, and Mireille Enos was doing a lovely job in the Cate Blanchett role as an ambiguous villain / ally. But it was all about Esme Creed-Miles, who was consistently delivering a performance of mesmerising quality – I could not take my eyes off her. As with the character she was playing there was some learning to be done in understanding the rules of this world, but she had obviously been trained well by a parent with huge experience in these things.
Season one ends with a tantalising cliffhanger, and there didn’t seem to be much of a wait to get back into it in season two, which felt more assured and more mature from the start. It came to me at a weird time in lockdown where I had no internet or means to watch anything I hadn’t downloaded already, which was a handful of films I’d already seen and season two of Hanna. I ended up watching each episode at least three times each, sometimes in a row, and sometimes going back… it just became a real companion to me in an odd way. I got hooked on it in a way I would find hard to describe – sometimes a show does that to us, even when objectively we know it isn’t the best, or most original, thing ever made.
It isn’t badly made by any means, but it is perhaps a little predictable at times. It has a high production standard, but still feels very much like TV and not a feature film in episodes. The action choreography is always great, as is the overall story arch. What is perhaps a little lacking is consistently strong dialogue, directing and supporting acting, especially when the cast of season two depends on a lot of teenagers, none of which have half the natural ability of Creed-Miles.
My main feeling about Hanna is to state I really enjoyed it, without overstating that it is any kind of genius, or is treading any new artistic ground. It is just a solid entertainment worth the time, and I will definitely be looking forward to season three. The entire project has a strong female core, and that is worth seeing in 2021. I suspect the main thing watching this will bring, however, is the genesis of a future superstar. Mark my words – Esme Creed-Miles just turned 21 and the film world is ready for the next Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence or… Samantha Morton.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Guns Akimbo (2019) in Movies
May 20, 2020
When I first heard about Guns Akimbo I was very interested in seeing it, when I next heard about it... well, it wasn't exactly a happy internet moment. Despite the actions of one person though you shouldn't write off something that so many people worked on, that meant I was still keen.
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.
The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.
Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.
The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.
Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.
As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.
There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.
We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Greedy men + Dinosaurs = Lunch!
I’ve really had a rollercoaster of emotions on this one. As a general fan of dinosaurs running riot, since I saw the brilliant original in 1993, I was pretty disillusioned by the teaser trailer for this one: all over-the-top CGI. But as the lights dimmed and the Universal logo faded to ominous sonar sounds, the hairs stood up again and I thought J.A. Bayona (“A Monster Calls“) *might* deliver something really special here. Ultimately though, I left the theatre disappointed… but only slightly so.
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
With extreme topicality given what is happening on one of the Hawaiian islands at the moment, Isla Nublar – home to the now derelict Jurassic World theme park – is in serious trouble due to a volcanic eruption. Swayed by chaos theory expert Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a US senate committee decides to do…. absolutely nothing, letting the dinosaurs face re-extinction. This is much to the fury of our heroine from the first film, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas-Howard), who now runs a “Save the Dinosaurs” group. When all seems lost, help comes from the wallet of philanthropist Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell, “Babe”, “LA Confidential”) and his ops manager Eli Mills (Rafe Spall, “The Big Short“) who propose to fund a private rescue mission: a mission that requires the involvement of Velociraptor-wrangler Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Passengers“). But are their motives truly honourable?
The film has its moments, with some well-executed action scenes, some nice munching of bad people and a few scenes that are truly touching: shots of a brachiosauruses’ last moments is a memorable piece of cinema. But that said, the film is extremely patchy. An exciting (but not particularly logical) pre-title sequence seques into a very wordy and action-free first reel, headed up by Goldblum (always seated: did he have his legs chewed off by a raptor?) droning on (blah blah blah), no doubt for a huge fee but not for much purpose. The early part of the movie is good however at introducing new characters: specifically the geeky Franklin (Justice Smith) and the pre-requisite 2018 ‘Times Up” kick-ass female character Zia ( Daniella Pineda), who is actually very good. As a whole though it’s not terribly engaging, leading to even the reveal of the derelict theme park – which should have been a high point – falling somewhat flat.
The much trailered volcano scenes that follow are impressive but should have been left to impress in the film.
Things ratchet up again though when the action moves to the more confining environment of Lockwood’s estate, bringing in arch-villain Gunnar Eversol played by Toby Jones (“The Snowman“, “Atomic Blonde“), who really should have taken the stairs, and Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie ( Isabella Sermon) who is excellent as the ‘child in peril’. Some of the character’s actions don’t make a lot of sense (laser-targeting Owen? Why?) but they do generate some memorable scenes, supported by Michael Giacchino’s stirring soundtrack.
So, it pretty much works as an action film, but in terms of character development it doesn’t go anywhere in particular: Claire and Owen come out in about the same condition as they came in. I was expecting something deeper from Bayona (with his “A Monster Calls” being my personal No. 2 film of last year) than just a ‘running and screaming’ film.
It’s also difficult to avoid the fact that after five of these films there’s nothing much new under the Isla Nublar sun. Some of the plot here is a retread of the genetic shenanigans of the last film, mixed with the ‘off-island’ antics of “The Lost World”. And most of the action scenes are just stripped and re-painted from the earlier films. For example, the “about to get eaten but saved by another dinosaur” trope so expertly done by Spielberg in the finale of JP1 is re-hashed not once but THREE times in this movie: leading to more yawning that excitement if I’m honest.
Overall though, it’s an effective summer blockbuster that mostly delivers on the thrills and should be a good crowd-pleaser. By the way, staying through the endless credits is worth it not just for getting the full force of Giacchino and Williams’ majestic themes: there is quite a nice “monkey” at the end, illustrating that gambling might involve more than just money in the future!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jimmy's Hall (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s not to often that we folks in America have the opportunity to catch any movies from Ireland.
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
Having been out of the "coming soon" game for quite a while so this one came as a surprise when I saw the trailer. It looked good, but there's always that "what is Shyamalan going to do" feeling.
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html