Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Jun 27, 2018)
Mindblowing
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have been on a bit of a documentary kick lately and my most recent watch was the Jinx. I never watched this show back when it aired in 2015, or followed the story at the time, so I went into this show knowing very little about the tale it was telling. I'd say if you are in the same boat, then that is probably the best way to go into this doc. There are only six parts to the doc, so it can be binged over a few nights or in one day. Don't look up anything about it before watching and just go in blind, by the end your mind will be blown.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Villain (1971) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Villain starts as we see how gangster Vic Dakin (Burton) controls London, he has people that will grass on him to the cops with Inspector Bob Matthews (Davenport) trying to bring down the criminal.
Vic continues to use his business connections to stay ahead of the police, with Wolfe Lissner (McShane) being the latest person the inspectors are turning to try and give up Vic’s secrets.
Thoughts on Villain
Characters – Vic Dakin runs London with his criminal activities, he is feared by most people and if you cross him, you will get hurt if not killed. He has become over confident that he can get away with anything, making him one of the prime targets for everyone involved in law. Wolf Lissner works for Vic, he is one of the youngster members of the crew and the one that the police are trying to use to turn on him, even if he the one person that Vic will always turn to. Bob Matthews is the inspector that has been trying to bring down Vic for years, he has risen up the ranks, got the people in the gang, but never been able to get the conviction. Gerald Draycott is the politician that is being blackmailed to keep the business under wraps for Vic.
Performances – We do have two big names in his film, first Richard Burton that doesn’t get to show the skill he could bring to a film, while a younger Ian McShane shows us that he could be set for a career in this sidekick gangster role. The rest of the cast are doing all they need to without being in anyway stand out through the film.
Story – The story follows a gangster that has the power over London, the police have been hunting him for years, but he always finds a way to get out of trouble. This time they get closer than ever before and could finally take down one of the biggest gangsters in London. When it comes to the gangster genre, we don’t really ever get much different when it comes to where the story goes, this one is based loosely on the Kray brother, but for some reason only one of the twins. It does feel like we have seen everything before, we don’t get drawn into support either side of the battle and end up feeling like it is just another gangster film.
Crime – The crime world we enter shows us just where the criminals operate and just where the police will need to turn to, in any hope of bringing him down.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London which see just how the criminals operate, where they can get away from crime.
Scene of the Movie – The opening scene as we see just how Vic can operate.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The final shot.
Final Thoughts – This is a typical British gangster film that starts with an intense opening, only to become a drag as the film unfolds.
Overall: British Gangster 101.
Vic continues to use his business connections to stay ahead of the police, with Wolfe Lissner (McShane) being the latest person the inspectors are turning to try and give up Vic’s secrets.
Thoughts on Villain
Characters – Vic Dakin runs London with his criminal activities, he is feared by most people and if you cross him, you will get hurt if not killed. He has become over confident that he can get away with anything, making him one of the prime targets for everyone involved in law. Wolf Lissner works for Vic, he is one of the youngster members of the crew and the one that the police are trying to use to turn on him, even if he the one person that Vic will always turn to. Bob Matthews is the inspector that has been trying to bring down Vic for years, he has risen up the ranks, got the people in the gang, but never been able to get the conviction. Gerald Draycott is the politician that is being blackmailed to keep the business under wraps for Vic.
Performances – We do have two big names in his film, first Richard Burton that doesn’t get to show the skill he could bring to a film, while a younger Ian McShane shows us that he could be set for a career in this sidekick gangster role. The rest of the cast are doing all they need to without being in anyway stand out through the film.
Story – The story follows a gangster that has the power over London, the police have been hunting him for years, but he always finds a way to get out of trouble. This time they get closer than ever before and could finally take down one of the biggest gangsters in London. When it comes to the gangster genre, we don’t really ever get much different when it comes to where the story goes, this one is based loosely on the Kray brother, but for some reason only one of the twins. It does feel like we have seen everything before, we don’t get drawn into support either side of the battle and end up feeling like it is just another gangster film.
Crime – The crime world we enter shows us just where the criminals operate and just where the police will need to turn to, in any hope of bringing him down.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London which see just how the criminals operate, where they can get away from crime.
Scene of the Movie – The opening scene as we see just how Vic can operate.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The final shot.
Final Thoughts – This is a typical British gangster film that starts with an intense opening, only to become a drag as the film unfolds.
Overall: British Gangster 101.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hangover (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
The road trip gone awry has been a staple of Hollywood comedies for years. Bing Crosby and Bob Hope provided tons of laughs with their “Road To” films which have continued with films ranging from “Road Trip” to the Chevy Chase “Vacation” film series. In the new movie “The Hangover”, Director Todd Phillips follows upon his many successes which include “Old School”, and “Starsky and Hutch” to create one of the funniest films in recent memory.
When Doug (Justin Bartha) is about to be married, his friends Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) decide to give Doug a bachelor party. With his eccentric future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifinakis) in tow, the guys hit the town for a night to remember. Or maybe not.
After a rooftop toast overlooking the scenic Las Vegas strip, Stu, Phil, and Alan awaken to find their lavish suite at Ceasar’s Palace destroyed and everything from a tiger to a chicken sharing their room. Henpecked Stu panics, having told his girlfriend they were going to wine country and is at a loss to explain the state of the room as well as his missing tooth. With all three men nursing a severe hangover and Doug nowhere to be found, things take a turn for the worse when a baby is discovered in the closet of their suite. Desperate to get to the bottom of the previous night and locate Doug, the guys try to piece together their lost night.
As the plot unfolds, the guys go from a wedding chapel to a hospital and police station, and trying to stay ahead of new threats and complications that arise. With Doug’s wedding looming in a few hours, the group takes extreme measures to find their friend and get him to the alter on time.
What follows is a hysterical and highly enjoyable comedy that rarely lets up long enough for you to stop laughing before unleashing even more comedy. The ensemble cast is strong and have great camaraderie and chemistry. The film loses some momentum in the final act but rebounds nicely with the final segments. Make sure you stay for the credits for some hysterical stuff and some great celebrity cameos. While some may find the humor crude and sophomoric, if you are not easily offended, you will laugh loud and often at this comedic delight.
When Doug (Justin Bartha) is about to be married, his friends Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) decide to give Doug a bachelor party. With his eccentric future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifinakis) in tow, the guys hit the town for a night to remember. Or maybe not.
After a rooftop toast overlooking the scenic Las Vegas strip, Stu, Phil, and Alan awaken to find their lavish suite at Ceasar’s Palace destroyed and everything from a tiger to a chicken sharing their room. Henpecked Stu panics, having told his girlfriend they were going to wine country and is at a loss to explain the state of the room as well as his missing tooth. With all three men nursing a severe hangover and Doug nowhere to be found, things take a turn for the worse when a baby is discovered in the closet of their suite. Desperate to get to the bottom of the previous night and locate Doug, the guys try to piece together their lost night.
As the plot unfolds, the guys go from a wedding chapel to a hospital and police station, and trying to stay ahead of new threats and complications that arise. With Doug’s wedding looming in a few hours, the group takes extreme measures to find their friend and get him to the alter on time.
What follows is a hysterical and highly enjoyable comedy that rarely lets up long enough for you to stop laughing before unleashing even more comedy. The ensemble cast is strong and have great camaraderie and chemistry. The film loses some momentum in the final act but rebounds nicely with the final segments. Make sure you stay for the credits for some hysterical stuff and some great celebrity cameos. While some may find the humor crude and sophomoric, if you are not easily offended, you will laugh loud and often at this comedic delight.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 16, 2018 (Updated Jul 17, 2018)
Worthy sequel, although a bit patchy in places
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's hard to believe that the original Incredibles movie is now 14 years old. It was, and still is, a fun, original and highly enjoyable superhero movie that was always deserving of a sequel. I re-watched it recently with my daughter who had never seen it, and despite it's age, and the fact that we've now had a decade of non-stop Marvel superhero movies since it was made, it still holds up 'incredibly' well.
The sequel picks up right where the original finished off, with The Incredibles battling supervillain The Underminer. It's the first of many impressive battle sequence, and does a good job of reminding us of the skills and abilities of each individual family member, not to mention how well they all work together as a team. The advances in animation quality over the last 14 years are obvious, while still managing to retain the unique look and feel of the original.
Unfortunately, the Parr's attempts to save the city don't quite go to plan, leading once again to their helpfulness being questioned by the US Government. They find themselves in a motel, contemplating their futures, until they are approached by Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk). He claims that the public have only seen the negative side of superheroes that is portrayed by the government, and wants to provide microscopic cameras embedded within the superhero costumes so that they can capture what they see. By showing the hero's side of the story, Winston plans to generate enough good publicity to start winning over the general public once again and hopefully reverse the law that makes superheroes illegal. Elastigirl is chosen to kick things off, largely due to the minimal government damage she's likely to cause in comparison to her husband! As a result, Mr Incredible is left at home to care for the kids, while Elastigirl is out having fun and saving the world.
The domestic comedy with Mr Incredible stuck at home is just brilliant. Not only does he have to try and get to grips with 'New Math' homework for son Dash, but also with daughter Violet and her boyfriend trouble. Not to mention the discovery that baby Jack-Jack has a set of impressive and highly unpredictable superpowers of his own. Meanwhile, the plan involving Elastigirl is working so well, that plans to make superheroes legal again get underway. But then mysterious new villain Screenslaver begins causing hypnotic chaos around town, and the family must band together once again in order to save the day.
Aside from the impressive action, and the hilarious scenes involving Jack-Jack, the rest of the movie in comparison does feel a little flat in places. In my opinion it falls slightly short of matching the original, although still a highly enjoyable and worthy sequel.
The sequel picks up right where the original finished off, with The Incredibles battling supervillain The Underminer. It's the first of many impressive battle sequence, and does a good job of reminding us of the skills and abilities of each individual family member, not to mention how well they all work together as a team. The advances in animation quality over the last 14 years are obvious, while still managing to retain the unique look and feel of the original.
Unfortunately, the Parr's attempts to save the city don't quite go to plan, leading once again to their helpfulness being questioned by the US Government. They find themselves in a motel, contemplating their futures, until they are approached by Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk). He claims that the public have only seen the negative side of superheroes that is portrayed by the government, and wants to provide microscopic cameras embedded within the superhero costumes so that they can capture what they see. By showing the hero's side of the story, Winston plans to generate enough good publicity to start winning over the general public once again and hopefully reverse the law that makes superheroes illegal. Elastigirl is chosen to kick things off, largely due to the minimal government damage she's likely to cause in comparison to her husband! As a result, Mr Incredible is left at home to care for the kids, while Elastigirl is out having fun and saving the world.
The domestic comedy with Mr Incredible stuck at home is just brilliant. Not only does he have to try and get to grips with 'New Math' homework for son Dash, but also with daughter Violet and her boyfriend trouble. Not to mention the discovery that baby Jack-Jack has a set of impressive and highly unpredictable superpowers of his own. Meanwhile, the plan involving Elastigirl is working so well, that plans to make superheroes legal again get underway. But then mysterious new villain Screenslaver begins causing hypnotic chaos around town, and the family must band together once again in order to save the day.
Aside from the impressive action, and the hilarious scenes involving Jack-Jack, the rest of the movie in comparison does feel a little flat in places. In my opinion it falls slightly short of matching the original, although still a highly enjoyable and worthy sequel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with “Fast and Furious 8” (aka “The Fate of the Furious”)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.