Search
Search results
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The daughter (and stepdaughter) of actors, Sally Field earned her first acting role at seventeen and was quickly on television in shows such as "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun." Those roles showcased Sally's youth and smiling personality. But, behind the scenes, Sally had a tumultuous childhood: her parents divorced when she was young, and her relationships with them and her stepfather were not easy. She found happiness, in many ways, as an actress, but also struggled to find roles that challenged her. In this, her first memoir, she tells the story of her childhood and her early years as an actress.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
JT (287 KP) rated Killing Them Softly (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There was quite a significant gap between films for writer/director Andrew Dominik, five years in fact. His last feature length outing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a Western epic and here he has teamed up with Brad Pitt again for Killing Them Softly, one with a significantly shorter run time.
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
As a small child, I can remember the Iranian hostage crisis as it dominated the news media for over a year. While I did not understand the political atmosphere behind it, I did understand that a group of our embassy staff were being held prisoner in a foreign land for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Director and star Ben Affleck has brought a new side to the story to light in the form of his new film “Argo”, which is based upon true events which have recently become declassified. The story centers around six workers of the embassy in Tehran, who fled the chaos when a disgruntled mob stormed the embassy walls. At that time it was unheard of for an embassy to be occupied as they host country and internal security were thought to of been more than adequate protection.
However for a country in a state of revolution, much less one that was extremely upset with America’s refusal to return the deposed Shah to face trial, security from the local populace was not available when the unthinkable happened.
After being turned away by the British and New Zealand embassies, the six escapees find refuge in the residence of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber), who refuses to turn them away despite the volatile political situation harboring them would create should they ever be discovered.
On the other side of the world, C.I.A. Director Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston), and his staff are desperately looking for a way to retrieve not only the Americans held hostage but also the six individuals currently being sheltered by the Canadian ambassador.
With few viable options available, save for the longshot of trying to get the refugees to bike through 300 miles of winter and soldier laden roads to the Turkish border, Tony Mendez (Affleck), is brought in to find other options.
One evening, Tony gets the idea to go to Iran posing as a Canadian filmmaker on a location scouting trip for an upcoming film. His plan is to pass the refugees off as part of his crew thanks to newly issued passports from the Canadian government.
In order to add validity to his plan, Tony recruits award-winning makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman), and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to help establish the necessary cover for the operation.
Soon Tony, John, and Lester have obtained a script for science fiction film named “Argo”, and the use the Hollywood trades and publicity machine to establish their back story of their production company and film project.
With time running down, Tony must venture alone to Tehran to meet with and prepare the refugees for extraction as well as firming up their cover with the local Iranian authorities.
What follows is a tense political thriller that is extremely well performed and captivating throughout. What really impressed me about the film was that Affleck expertly paced it and refrain from using such overused stereotypes such as car chases, fight sequences, and love scenes to tell the story.
The cast is exceptionally good all around and the film does a good job capturing the look and the atmosphere of the situation without ever becoming preachy and taking extreme political stances. Instead the focus is on real people caught in an extraordinary situation from which they were unprepared, and the extraordinary measures taken by good people in the United States and Canada who stepped up and did the right thing regardless of the cost to them personally or politically.
“Argo”, was an extremely pleasant surprise in one of the most enjoyable films I have seen this year. While I understand it would not be for everyone, I would not be surprised to see the film get a few Oscar nods come awards season as they would be in my opinion well deserved.
Director and star Ben Affleck has brought a new side to the story to light in the form of his new film “Argo”, which is based upon true events which have recently become declassified. The story centers around six workers of the embassy in Tehran, who fled the chaos when a disgruntled mob stormed the embassy walls. At that time it was unheard of for an embassy to be occupied as they host country and internal security were thought to of been more than adequate protection.
However for a country in a state of revolution, much less one that was extremely upset with America’s refusal to return the deposed Shah to face trial, security from the local populace was not available when the unthinkable happened.
After being turned away by the British and New Zealand embassies, the six escapees find refuge in the residence of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber), who refuses to turn them away despite the volatile political situation harboring them would create should they ever be discovered.
On the other side of the world, C.I.A. Director Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston), and his staff are desperately looking for a way to retrieve not only the Americans held hostage but also the six individuals currently being sheltered by the Canadian ambassador.
With few viable options available, save for the longshot of trying to get the refugees to bike through 300 miles of winter and soldier laden roads to the Turkish border, Tony Mendez (Affleck), is brought in to find other options.
One evening, Tony gets the idea to go to Iran posing as a Canadian filmmaker on a location scouting trip for an upcoming film. His plan is to pass the refugees off as part of his crew thanks to newly issued passports from the Canadian government.
In order to add validity to his plan, Tony recruits award-winning makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman), and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to help establish the necessary cover for the operation.
Soon Tony, John, and Lester have obtained a script for science fiction film named “Argo”, and the use the Hollywood trades and publicity machine to establish their back story of their production company and film project.
With time running down, Tony must venture alone to Tehran to meet with and prepare the refugees for extraction as well as firming up their cover with the local Iranian authorities.
What follows is a tense political thriller that is extremely well performed and captivating throughout. What really impressed me about the film was that Affleck expertly paced it and refrain from using such overused stereotypes such as car chases, fight sequences, and love scenes to tell the story.
The cast is exceptionally good all around and the film does a good job capturing the look and the atmosphere of the situation without ever becoming preachy and taking extreme political stances. Instead the focus is on real people caught in an extraordinary situation from which they were unprepared, and the extraordinary measures taken by good people in the United States and Canada who stepped up and did the right thing regardless of the cost to them personally or politically.
“Argo”, was an extremely pleasant surprise in one of the most enjoyable films I have seen this year. While I understand it would not be for everyone, I would not be surprised to see the film get a few Oscar nods come awards season as they would be in my opinion well deserved.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Repo Men (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
What does it mean to be both alive and dead?
Based on the novel “The Repossession Mambo” by Eric Garcia, Repo Men is a dark sci-fi action film from director Miguel Sapochnik. It is an oddly sadistic film that begins as a fantastic black comedy/drama, loses its way in the second act with well-shot but mindless action and predictable plot elements, yet still finds its way back before the credits roll.
Remy and Jake, played by Jude Law and Forest Whitaker, are both Repo Men for The Union, an alarming combination of loan shark and artificial organ manufacturer. Those unfortunate patients that fall too far behind on their payments have their artificial parts removed and reclaimed, often accompanied by grisly special effects. Through an accident at a routine repossession, Remy ends up needing a new heart. In the process of trying to pay for it, he realizes that he can no longer find the moral ambivalence necessary to take the life of a stranger in order to earn the money to save his own. This film is definitely not for the squeamish, and many scenes were not unlike watching a surgery in progress.
This film will certainly attract more than a nod from those clamoring for universal healthcare in the United States, as well as those railing against corporate greed at the expense of human life. The Union is everything we love to hate in a corporation. Nothing, from duping emotionally compromised patients, to putting profits above all else, to even killing people, is out of bounds for this corporation. It’s uncommon to see corporate evil of this magnitude in a film, and with Liev Schreiber manning the helm, this evil is personified and delivered with such panache that he becomes an enjoyable caricature to watch.
This movie would be nothing without Remy’s path from classic amoral psychopath to redeemed soul, but the journey at times becomes muddy and obscure. Law plays the part somewhat stiffly, but still manages to shine in his interactions with Whitaker and Schreiber. Whitaker, however, is fantastic as Remy’s uncompromisingly unsympathetic partner Jake, who holds on tightly to what he knows and believes, however unprincipled. By the film’s end, Whitaker’s performance as the frustrated partner becomes even more impressive when compared to Law’s movement from perpetrator to victim to agent of retribution.
For years, Remy had no moral compunction against repossessing organs, nearly always from those who will die without them. But when his heart is removed, he suddenly empathizes with the victims of his profession. An odd paradox: that becoming less human can impart more humanity. Remy is both more genuinely alive after receiving his artificial heart, and more certain he will be dead when he can no longer pay. This is the crux of the film, and on this basis a clever story is told about the intersection of making a living, being alive, and the entanglements they create.
Based on the novel “The Repossession Mambo” by Eric Garcia, Repo Men is a dark sci-fi action film from director Miguel Sapochnik. It is an oddly sadistic film that begins as a fantastic black comedy/drama, loses its way in the second act with well-shot but mindless action and predictable plot elements, yet still finds its way back before the credits roll.
Remy and Jake, played by Jude Law and Forest Whitaker, are both Repo Men for The Union, an alarming combination of loan shark and artificial organ manufacturer. Those unfortunate patients that fall too far behind on their payments have their artificial parts removed and reclaimed, often accompanied by grisly special effects. Through an accident at a routine repossession, Remy ends up needing a new heart. In the process of trying to pay for it, he realizes that he can no longer find the moral ambivalence necessary to take the life of a stranger in order to earn the money to save his own. This film is definitely not for the squeamish, and many scenes were not unlike watching a surgery in progress.
This film will certainly attract more than a nod from those clamoring for universal healthcare in the United States, as well as those railing against corporate greed at the expense of human life. The Union is everything we love to hate in a corporation. Nothing, from duping emotionally compromised patients, to putting profits above all else, to even killing people, is out of bounds for this corporation. It’s uncommon to see corporate evil of this magnitude in a film, and with Liev Schreiber manning the helm, this evil is personified and delivered with such panache that he becomes an enjoyable caricature to watch.
This movie would be nothing without Remy’s path from classic amoral psychopath to redeemed soul, but the journey at times becomes muddy and obscure. Law plays the part somewhat stiffly, but still manages to shine in his interactions with Whitaker and Schreiber. Whitaker, however, is fantastic as Remy’s uncompromisingly unsympathetic partner Jake, who holds on tightly to what he knows and believes, however unprincipled. By the film’s end, Whitaker’s performance as the frustrated partner becomes even more impressive when compared to Law’s movement from perpetrator to victim to agent of retribution.
For years, Remy had no moral compunction against repossessing organs, nearly always from those who will die without them. But when his heart is removed, he suddenly empathizes with the victims of his profession. An odd paradox: that becoming less human can impart more humanity. Remy is both more genuinely alive after receiving his artificial heart, and more certain he will be dead when he can no longer pay. This is the crux of the film, and on this basis a clever story is told about the intersection of making a living, being alive, and the entanglements they create.
Simple Machines by Tinybop
Education and Reference
App
Explore the playful side of physics! Experiment with levers, pulleys, inclined planes, wedges,...
Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1939-2009
Book
This new, expanded edition brings the story of the Interstates into the twenty-first century. It...