Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the opening slow motion bullet to the face and exit wound that leaves a spray of deep red across the screen, it’s clear to see that this Dredd reboot is all about eradicating the memory of Stallone. It also does its best to stay true to the graphic novels in which this Judge Dredd leaves his helmet on for the entirety.
Karl Urban steps into the boots for this outing and complete with grizzled voice that echoes of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry he goes up against female villain Ma-Ma (Headey) who is as nasty as she is ruthless.
Mega City one, set on the East Coast and running from Boston to Washington DC is the Judges stomping ground and its being overrun by a new drug called SLO-MO in which users experience reality at a fraction of the speed. When a routine homicide leads Dredd and rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Thirlby) to The Peach Trees, a 200-storey slum tower block (wait, another tower block?), they must fight their way through the scum to get to the top and bring down the prostitute turned drug lord.
The film is certainly grittier and bloodier than its almost comic predecessor, and director Travis does not shy away from this.
An early encounter in which Dredd and Anderson infiltrate a drug house is slowed right down, maybe in some way to mirror the feeling the SLO-MO drug has on its users. Bullets and blood fly as the casualties and body count rise significantly, Dredd quips the occasional one liner with deadpan expression “negotiation’s over. Sentence is death.”
Those that saw The Raid would have been mesmerized by the action which was none stop from start to finish, sadly Dredd doesn’t live up to those high expectations but does its best to stay with mainstream carnage, of which there is plenty to satisfy.
It’s all about the facial expression
Thirlby’s psychic abilities prove useful but almost disappointing that she can second guess her opponents, a mutant, she’d probably fit in well with the X-Men. She’s the sense of reason to Dredd’s brute force, although most of the time he’s right in what he does, after all he is the law. The film is stripped back, humour is used when needed, and the action set pieces are exceptional. Urban a long time supporting actor now gets a chance to be front and centre in a franchise that can really go places.
Karl Urban steps into the boots for this outing and complete with grizzled voice that echoes of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry he goes up against female villain Ma-Ma (Headey) who is as nasty as she is ruthless.
Mega City one, set on the East Coast and running from Boston to Washington DC is the Judges stomping ground and its being overrun by a new drug called SLO-MO in which users experience reality at a fraction of the speed. When a routine homicide leads Dredd and rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Thirlby) to The Peach Trees, a 200-storey slum tower block (wait, another tower block?), they must fight their way through the scum to get to the top and bring down the prostitute turned drug lord.
The film is certainly grittier and bloodier than its almost comic predecessor, and director Travis does not shy away from this.
An early encounter in which Dredd and Anderson infiltrate a drug house is slowed right down, maybe in some way to mirror the feeling the SLO-MO drug has on its users. Bullets and blood fly as the casualties and body count rise significantly, Dredd quips the occasional one liner with deadpan expression “negotiation’s over. Sentence is death.”
Those that saw The Raid would have been mesmerized by the action which was none stop from start to finish, sadly Dredd doesn’t live up to those high expectations but does its best to stay with mainstream carnage, of which there is plenty to satisfy.
It’s all about the facial expression
Thirlby’s psychic abilities prove useful but almost disappointing that she can second guess her opponents, a mutant, she’d probably fit in well with the X-Men. She’s the sense of reason to Dredd’s brute force, although most of the time he’s right in what he does, after all he is the law. The film is stripped back, humour is used when needed, and the action set pieces are exceptional. Urban a long time supporting actor now gets a chance to be front and centre in a franchise that can really go places.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Black Mass (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
He was one of the most dangerous men and most notorious gangsters in American history. For over sixteen years he evaded the FBI and law enforcement until his eventual capture in 2011. Black Mass tells the story of James “Whitey” Bulger and his alliance with the FBI. The film delves deep into the relationship that is built between Bulger and FBI agents which allows him to expand his power beyond the Boston area. Audiences will be awestruck by the actions permitted and overlooked on the part of FBI agents working with Bulger which fall in line with the advice that Bulger gives his son: “If no one saw it, it didn’t happen.”
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Footloose (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Public dancing is against the law in the small religious town of Bomont. But Boston-raised teenager, Ren McCormack and the Reverend’s daughter Ariel have other ideas in this remake of the 1984 classic.
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
At a rundown warehouse in 1970’s Boston, Justine (Brie Larson) and Ord (Armie Hammer) are brokering a deal between a South African arms dealer (Sharlto Copley) and members of the IRA (Cillian Murphy & Michael Smiley). Tensions flare almost immediately between the two sides and an inevitable battle of wills and gunplay ensues when two members of their entourage take decisive action on a fresh grudge from the night before.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Boondock Saints (1999) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
B is for Bad A**
Contains spoilers, click to show
This entertaining action film opens with aerial views of Boston and narration of the Lord's Prayer on St. Patty's Day. Soon, we are introduced to two Irish brothers, Connor and Murphy MacManus. The terrible twosome work in a meat-packing plant: in their spare time, they slaughter evildoers. What could be better? With their black shirts, black blazers, and blue jeans, the brothers seem like Mormon missionaries gone horribly wrong.
Connor and Murphy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), fall into the
profession of murdering bad guys quite by accident. Initially, the fact that they killed a Russian crime lord, and his associate, after a bar fight seems a coincidental act of self-defense. They are hailed, at first, as heroes. They somehow continue to avoid prosecution, though from the beginning they are being pursued by FBI agent Paul Smecker. They start targeting the crime lords on purpose, and they eventually end up being hunted by a more ominous figure, the legendary hitman Il Duce.
Willem Dafoe gets an A for awesome in my book for his performance as FBI agent Paul Smecker. Smecker is a homosexual, and he is not apologetic about it. In fact, he draws attention to his orientation in many scenes. Particularly memorable is the moment where he corrects an officer’s use of the word “symbology” by hissing a pronounced s: “ssssymbolism.” Later in the film, Dafoe even gets the opportunity to use his feminine wiles by dressing in drag, a visual experience which I promise is as disconcerting as it sounds.
The presentation of Smecker’s crime scene explanations was particularly impressive. The crime scene was shown first, and the events that created it unfolded in retrospect as Smecker described the scene. Enhanced by the intensity of the score, Dafoe offered a memorable narration of an epic shootout, during which he resembles an insane conductor.
The writing in this film was great, with witty one-liners throughout to break the tension. There were several moments in the film where one wonders if the brothers’ success is due to dumb luck or divinity. The MacManus twins certainly seem to believe that their cause is a righteous one.
I must also acknowledge the score, by Jeff Danna, which beautifully compliments the opening sequence and the rest of the film. The score even includes a variation of a hymn, infused with a beat you can dance to.
I love a good revenge film, and this is one for the ages. To sum up my complex feelings about the vigilante-style justice in this film, I must end with a quote by Connor MacManus: "I'm strangely comfortable with it."
Connor and Murphy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), fall into the
profession of murdering bad guys quite by accident. Initially, the fact that they killed a Russian crime lord, and his associate, after a bar fight seems a coincidental act of self-defense. They are hailed, at first, as heroes. They somehow continue to avoid prosecution, though from the beginning they are being pursued by FBI agent Paul Smecker. They start targeting the crime lords on purpose, and they eventually end up being hunted by a more ominous figure, the legendary hitman Il Duce.
Willem Dafoe gets an A for awesome in my book for his performance as FBI agent Paul Smecker. Smecker is a homosexual, and he is not apologetic about it. In fact, he draws attention to his orientation in many scenes. Particularly memorable is the moment where he corrects an officer’s use of the word “symbology” by hissing a pronounced s: “ssssymbolism.” Later in the film, Dafoe even gets the opportunity to use his feminine wiles by dressing in drag, a visual experience which I promise is as disconcerting as it sounds.
The presentation of Smecker’s crime scene explanations was particularly impressive. The crime scene was shown first, and the events that created it unfolded in retrospect as Smecker described the scene. Enhanced by the intensity of the score, Dafoe offered a memorable narration of an epic shootout, during which he resembles an insane conductor.
The writing in this film was great, with witty one-liners throughout to break the tension. There were several moments in the film where one wonders if the brothers’ success is due to dumb luck or divinity. The MacManus twins certainly seem to believe that their cause is a righteous one.
I must also acknowledge the score, by Jeff Danna, which beautifully compliments the opening sequence and the rest of the film. The score even includes a variation of a hymn, infused with a beat you can dance to.
I love a good revenge film, and this is one for the ages. To sum up my complex feelings about the vigilante-style justice in this film, I must end with a quote by Connor MacManus: "I'm strangely comfortable with it."
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Equalizer (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m not going to waste ANY time getting started with this one. No, you’re not daydreaming. Denzel Washington has teamed-up again with director Antoine Fuqua and once again, they’ve created another outstanding masterpiece of a movie. In fact, the film has seen such postive reviews so far that there’s already talk of a sequal and even a possible franchise. After seeing the film myself, I would not be surprised in the least if
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Good Will Hunting (1997) in Movies
Jul 9, 2021
Well Deserved Oscars for Williams, Damon and Affleck
One of the benefits of “Secret Movie Night” is that it forces me to watch (or rewatch) a film that I would not seek out on my own. Such is the case with this month’s selection - GOOD WILL HUNTING - the film that made Matt Damon and Ben Affleck stars and earned the late, great Robin Williams his only Academy Award.
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Honest Thief (2020) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Tom (Liam Neeson) is a long-time bank robber eager to put his past behind him in the new film “Honest Thief”. A circumstance forced Tom to decide to strike back at the establishment following a career in ordinance in the military and has found he has a real talent for blowing safes and making away with millions of dollars over several years.
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Spoiler free section: Pet Sematary starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz and John Lithgow wasn’t badly cast, it felt perfect actually, even the child actor Jete Laurence was above average. There wasn’t anything wrong with their performance either, each actor performed their role really well and their characters were believable. But the movie just left me needing so much more.
Pet Sematary is a movie about a family who moves from Boston to escape big city life and spend more quality family time in the country side. Little do they know that their new property contains a pet cemetery! Horror ensues… well kinda, a little bit does at least.
The movie moves at a slow creeping pace, which is fine for a horror movie to start but there needs to be payoff. The build up to payoff ratio is about 90-10. It’s all build up with a few aspects of the movie never having any sort of payoff whatsoever. Even the movie as a whole ended without solid resolution.
The atmosphere in the movie was average for a main stream horror movie but if you are a hardcore horror movie fan you will be disappointed. The movie drew a lot of unintentional laughter from the audience at times when the movie should have been building tension. There was the occasion where the movie was doing it intentionally and that’s really when the movie was at its best. I use the term “best” loosely as the movie sets the bar pretty low.
If you were expecting this reboot of the Stephen King classic to be on the same level as IT, you will be greatly disappointed.
Spoiler section: The unresolved stories in this movie really bugged me.
There is a character played by Obssa Ahmed, who is a car accident victim who kinda haunts the family but says it’s because the main character tried to help him before he died. He seems like he’s eventually going to play a saving role but never does, he just exists, for no reason.
The actual Pet Sematary is meaningless. It’s actually not haunted, and nothing exceptional happens there. It’s just a passing through point to the actual haunted place a mile away. Boring.
Kids with the masks and the funeral procession that looked really cool in the preview meant nothing…
Supernatural things kept happening in the house. Was the house haunted? I couldn’t tell if it was the family, the house or just the area a mile behind the house that was haunted. The only thing I was sure about was that the titular pet cemetery was the only thing not haunted at all.
This movie is not for hard core horror fans, its more for your mom who likes scary movies occasionally. I can’t recommend this movie. It’s very forgettable and not worth the price of admission. Super vanilla, pointless characters and plot points, and only a few jump scares make this movie a hard pass. 1.5 out 5 stars. That Ramones song during the end credits is catchy as hell though J
Pet Sematary is a movie about a family who moves from Boston to escape big city life and spend more quality family time in the country side. Little do they know that their new property contains a pet cemetery! Horror ensues… well kinda, a little bit does at least.
The movie moves at a slow creeping pace, which is fine for a horror movie to start but there needs to be payoff. The build up to payoff ratio is about 90-10. It’s all build up with a few aspects of the movie never having any sort of payoff whatsoever. Even the movie as a whole ended without solid resolution.
The atmosphere in the movie was average for a main stream horror movie but if you are a hardcore horror movie fan you will be disappointed. The movie drew a lot of unintentional laughter from the audience at times when the movie should have been building tension. There was the occasion where the movie was doing it intentionally and that’s really when the movie was at its best. I use the term “best” loosely as the movie sets the bar pretty low.
If you were expecting this reboot of the Stephen King classic to be on the same level as IT, you will be greatly disappointed.
Spoiler section: The unresolved stories in this movie really bugged me.
There is a character played by Obssa Ahmed, who is a car accident victim who kinda haunts the family but says it’s because the main character tried to help him before he died. He seems like he’s eventually going to play a saving role but never does, he just exists, for no reason.
The actual Pet Sematary is meaningless. It’s actually not haunted, and nothing exceptional happens there. It’s just a passing through point to the actual haunted place a mile away. Boring.
Kids with the masks and the funeral procession that looked really cool in the preview meant nothing…
Supernatural things kept happening in the house. Was the house haunted? I couldn’t tell if it was the family, the house or just the area a mile behind the house that was haunted. The only thing I was sure about was that the titular pet cemetery was the only thing not haunted at all.
This movie is not for hard core horror fans, its more for your mom who likes scary movies occasionally. I can’t recommend this movie. It’s very forgettable and not worth the price of admission. Super vanilla, pointless characters and plot points, and only a few jump scares make this movie a hard pass. 1.5 out 5 stars. That Ramones song during the end credits is catchy as hell though J
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated That's My Boy (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Adam Sandler movies have often been a mixed bag. For every “The Wedding Singer” and “50 First Dates” there are several forgettable offerings like “Little Nicky”, “I Now Prounounce You Chuck and Larry”, and “8 Crazy Nights”. To be fair there’ve also been several guilty pleasures such as “Happy Gilmore” and “The Waterboy” along the way. Sadly, his recent offerings, culminating in the disastrous “Jack and Jill”, have given me very low expectations for his new film “That’s My Boy” which pairs Sandler with former Saturday Night Live star Andy Samberg.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.