Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Erika (17788 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
This has been the only film I've seen in theaters this July (too many kids movies), and it was completely worth it.
The only gripe I have, to start out with, was the length. QT definitely took his time to develop the characters, and to enjoy the overall nostalgia of Hollywood in 1969. I'm not really a Brad Pitt (Cliff) fan, but his chemistry with Leo was a joy to watch, and highly amusing. I really loved Leo in this, aside from his persistent Calvin Candie accent.
I really enjoyed Moh's Bruce Lee, and the scene with Cliff was one of my favorites. Another of my favorites was the ultra-creepiness of the Spahn Ranch with the Manson family.
The entire movie, I was waiting for the signature violence, and while there was a little at Spahn Ranch, the end was amazing. The last scenes had me laughing so hard, I was crying, I loved it. QT really let us know how he feels about the Manson family.
Of course, this is a fairy-tale, so the end result was different than what happened in real life. I'm for sure going to try to catch this flick again tomorrow.
Also- RIP Luke Perry, he got very little screen time, but it was great screen time.
The only gripe I have, to start out with, was the length. QT definitely took his time to develop the characters, and to enjoy the overall nostalgia of Hollywood in 1969. I'm not really a Brad Pitt (Cliff) fan, but his chemistry with Leo was a joy to watch, and highly amusing. I really loved Leo in this, aside from his persistent Calvin Candie accent.
I really enjoyed Moh's Bruce Lee, and the scene with Cliff was one of my favorites. Another of my favorites was the ultra-creepiness of the Spahn Ranch with the Manson family.
The entire movie, I was waiting for the signature violence, and while there was a little at Spahn Ranch, the end was amazing. The last scenes had me laughing so hard, I was crying, I loved it. QT really let us know how he feels about the Manson family.
Of course, this is a fairy-tale, so the end result was different than what happened in real life. I'm for sure going to try to catch this flick again tomorrow.
Also- RIP Luke Perry, he got very little screen time, but it was great screen time.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Friends in TV
Aug 30, 2019
The one with all the FRIENDS
Friends is a show about 6 people-
siblings Ross and monica Gellar (still suffering with sibling rivalry) monicas neighbours from across the hall Joey tribbiani (a struggling actor, with the IQ of a child but a heart of gold) and Chandler Bing (the groups comedian and Ross's college roommate) monica's High school bestie Rachel Green ( queen Rachel. Who does whatever she wants in her little Rachel land) & phoebe buffay (wacky, unpredictable and very odd).
The characters and their daily lives are what makes this show great as it mirrors the reality of every day people, although there have been shows since it ended that have had a similar impact on viewers, none have truly come close to being as genuine.
Heart warming storylines, legendary one liners and quotes we all still use today, there's Love, Laughter, Lust, Loss and great cameos from brad Pitt, Jeff Goldblum, Robin Williams, Paul Rudd, Bruce Willis and so many more, it's easy to see why after nearly 20yrs since it ended, it's still here.
Its 2019 & I have personally watched this show from beginning to end (with a little help from Netflix) 7 times an will continue to do so.
siblings Ross and monica Gellar (still suffering with sibling rivalry) monicas neighbours from across the hall Joey tribbiani (a struggling actor, with the IQ of a child but a heart of gold) and Chandler Bing (the groups comedian and Ross's college roommate) monica's High school bestie Rachel Green ( queen Rachel. Who does whatever she wants in her little Rachel land) & phoebe buffay (wacky, unpredictable and very odd).
The characters and their daily lives are what makes this show great as it mirrors the reality of every day people, although there have been shows since it ended that have had a similar impact on viewers, none have truly come close to being as genuine.
Heart warming storylines, legendary one liners and quotes we all still use today, there's Love, Laughter, Lust, Loss and great cameos from brad Pitt, Jeff Goldblum, Robin Williams, Paul Rudd, Bruce Willis and so many more, it's easy to see why after nearly 20yrs since it ended, it's still here.
Its 2019 & I have personally watched this show from beginning to end (with a little help from Netflix) 7 times an will continue to do so.
JT (287 KP) rated Killing Them Softly (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There was quite a significant gap between films for writer/director Andrew Dominik, five years in fact. His last feature length outing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a Western epic and here he has teamed up with Brad Pitt again for Killing Them Softly, one with a significantly shorter run time.
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allied (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
There's a great film in here somewhere
Director Robert Zemeckis has some impressive film credits to his name. From cult classics like Back to the Future to last year’s nausea inducing The Walk, there hasn’t been a genre his skills haven’t graced over the last four decades.
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
David McK (3207 KP) rated Troy (2004) in Movies
Apr 28, 2020
Following the success of "Gladiator" in 2000, I was expecting Hollywood to resurrect the old sword and sandals movies of yore, and for their to be a glut of the same.
At the time of writing this review (2020), there was actually surprisingly few such films: of the top of my head, I can only really think of "Robin Hood", "Kingdom of Heaven", and this.
With quite a few big names in its cast - Brad Pitt, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Peter O'Toole and Eric Bana to name a few - this retells the story of the siege of Troy (although said siege doesn't seem to last as long as originally told), following Paris (Orlando Bloom) elopement with the wife of Menelaus of Troy (Brendan Gleeson) Helen (Diane Kruger), giving an excuse for Agememnon (a scenery chewing Brian Cox) to go to war against that city.
While this does have some bruising action scenes - the beach landing, and Achilles Vs Hector are my personal favourite - unfortunately large swathes of the film are bogged down by necessary exposition, and I have to say that this version of Helen of Sparta (or Troy) face may be able to launch a dinghy or two, but not the fleet of a thousand ships that she is described as in the original texts (where she is said to be the most beautiful woman in the world).
At the time of writing this review (2020), there was actually surprisingly few such films: of the top of my head, I can only really think of "Robin Hood", "Kingdom of Heaven", and this.
With quite a few big names in its cast - Brad Pitt, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Peter O'Toole and Eric Bana to name a few - this retells the story of the siege of Troy (although said siege doesn't seem to last as long as originally told), following Paris (Orlando Bloom) elopement with the wife of Menelaus of Troy (Brendan Gleeson) Helen (Diane Kruger), giving an excuse for Agememnon (a scenery chewing Brian Cox) to go to war against that city.
While this does have some bruising action scenes - the beach landing, and Achilles Vs Hector are my personal favourite - unfortunately large swathes of the film are bogged down by necessary exposition, and I have to say that this version of Helen of Sparta (or Troy) face may be able to launch a dinghy or two, but not the fleet of a thousand ships that she is described as in the original texts (where she is said to be the most beautiful woman in the world).
JT (287 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If you like your baseball and statistics, if you know your ERA from your RBIs then this is surely going to be a film not to miss. Directed by Bennett Miller the film stars Brad Pitt as Billy Beane the general manager of the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 season in which the club went on a 20 game winning streak.
The theory and reason behind this success was using player stats and computer generated analysis to pick a team of relative nobodies, a practice that is now used by almost every baseball club in the National and American leagues today.
During this monumental season the club achieved 103 total wins doing so on a tiny budget, matching the mighty New York Yankees whose budget was well over $100m. To say that Beane’s method was out there was an understatement, and not everyone agreed, and in some cases they still don’t. The film however is living proof that it did work!
Beane’s sidekick in all of this and one of the only other people backing him was Peter Brand (Hill) the brains, whose ability to value and assess players on their potential to get to first plate and thus increase the likehood of runs was almost invaluable.
So how do you make a film about pure stats an exciting one, there is not enough live action to depend on, although the clubs pivotal game to reach twenty straight wins is pretty amazing when you see how they almost let an elven run lead slip through their fingers.
The acting is solid, Pitt and Hill gel extremely well and Philip Seymour Hoffman ads a gruff dimension as the clubs manager, seemingly having to succumb to Beane and Brand’s mathematical insanity.
You don’t need to be a fan of the game to enjoy this one, its an underdog story from the perspective of the back room and at the end when you see just how much Beane turned down to take the same post at the Boston Red Sox you can really get a feel for just how much it all meant to him.
The theory and reason behind this success was using player stats and computer generated analysis to pick a team of relative nobodies, a practice that is now used by almost every baseball club in the National and American leagues today.
During this monumental season the club achieved 103 total wins doing so on a tiny budget, matching the mighty New York Yankees whose budget was well over $100m. To say that Beane’s method was out there was an understatement, and not everyone agreed, and in some cases they still don’t. The film however is living proof that it did work!
Beane’s sidekick in all of this and one of the only other people backing him was Peter Brand (Hill) the brains, whose ability to value and assess players on their potential to get to first plate and thus increase the likehood of runs was almost invaluable.
So how do you make a film about pure stats an exciting one, there is not enough live action to depend on, although the clubs pivotal game to reach twenty straight wins is pretty amazing when you see how they almost let an elven run lead slip through their fingers.
The acting is solid, Pitt and Hill gel extremely well and Philip Seymour Hoffman ads a gruff dimension as the clubs manager, seemingly having to succumb to Beane and Brand’s mathematical insanity.
You don’t need to be a fan of the game to enjoy this one, its an underdog story from the perspective of the back room and at the end when you see just how much Beane turned down to take the same post at the Boston Red Sox you can really get a feel for just how much it all meant to him.
JT (287 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Zombies, they’ve been around for a while now in all shapes and sizes, yet like the walking undead the genre shows no signs of dying out. Director Marc Forster teams up with Brad Pitt for a zombie horror (if you can really call it that) which travels the world in search of a vaccine that will stop the world’s population being wiped out.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Dec 30, 2019
Love letter to Golden age of Hollywood. (2 more)
Chemistry of the cast carries the film.
Hilarious, tense and moments of sheer genius from Tarantino.
OUATIH is very simply put; A love letter to the golden age of Hollywood. It spans through the 1960's of Hollywood's obsession with Westerns, whilst focusing on the friendship of an ageing irrelevant actor, and his no nonsense and loyal stuntman, all set to the backdrop of the infamous Manson murders.
That alone sounds like a cocktail only Tarantino could blend, and a runtime of almost three hours unbelievably isn't enough to immerse me into the plot. It just feels second nature to what the film wants you to focus on, which is the friendship of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Their chemistry is the forefront and heart of OUATIH, bringing hilarious and ludicrous moments every minute their on screen together.
The Manson family and Sharon Tate's brief film exposure do serve their point with the overarching storyline of Rick's dying career, but they don't make you care as much. That being said, the moments of pure madness, especially in the grand finale, really do keep you biting your fingernails. Remember, this is Tarantino, its bound the get a bit bloody.
The 9th entry in Tarantino's outstanding catalogue is by far not his best work, but it's a really sweet and sentimental love for all things cinema.
That alone sounds like a cocktail only Tarantino could blend, and a runtime of almost three hours unbelievably isn't enough to immerse me into the plot. It just feels second nature to what the film wants you to focus on, which is the friendship of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Their chemistry is the forefront and heart of OUATIH, bringing hilarious and ludicrous moments every minute their on screen together.
The Manson family and Sharon Tate's brief film exposure do serve their point with the overarching storyline of Rick's dying career, but they don't make you care as much. That being said, the moments of pure madness, especially in the grand finale, really do keep you biting your fingernails. Remember, this is Tarantino, its bound the get a bit bloody.
The 9th entry in Tarantino's outstanding catalogue is by far not his best work, but it's a really sweet and sentimental love for all things cinema.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Interview with the Vampire (1994) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
How can a movie that does practically everything wrong still be so thoroughly enchanting? A fundamentally baffling, scalding hot trainwreck of epic proportions that hasn't held up to the passage of time really at all - a miscalculated weirdo relic of pop culture history. I think a lot of this film's appeal has to do with the fact that it's complete lightning in a bottle - for better or for worse we will never see another movie like this again: mopey, homoerotic rococo vampires stumble around through a flounderingly-paced pre-𝘛𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 template for lectures on moral dilemmas and a gallery of some of the most lush period visuals of the 90s (from the sweltering plantations of the 1700s south to the decadence of gothic European high-life, it's all orgasmically displayed). Also this is maybe the best use of "Sympathy For The Devil" in a film, even if it is an inferior cover. The fact that Brad Pitt wanted to die the entire time while filming for this woefully underconstructed character actually makes it the only thing that works with it, considering his only defining feature is... that he wants to die. A totally birdbrained brothel of jagged writing and wicked scenery-chewing from a glorious cast (you know you're in for a treat when Christian Slater gives the most restrained performance lol), actually pretty great even though it disembowels a lot of the original text's depth. Full-tilt camp.