Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jarhead 3: The Siege (2016) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Jarhead 3: The Siege starts as new recruit Evan Albright (Weber) who has just gotten a role working in the US Embassy in the Middle East, welcomed by Hansen (Ainsley) and under the orders from Gunny Raines (Adkins) with the job to protect the Ambassador Cahill (Hogan). With Evan going through the lesson of how to operate in the embassy we are ready to begin.
Evan notices somebody outside the normal outside the embassy, which soon sees him learning the lessons of the protocol. The marines find the embassy under siege and must use all their training to keep the Ambassador alive against countless enemies.
Thoughts on Jarhead 3: The Siege
Characters – Evan is the newest marine bought into the embassy, he does fill in the gaps for the protocol that must be followed by the team, learn to work with the rest of the unit and is the first to suspect something is going on around the embassy and ends up being the one leading the fight back. Gunny Raines is the leader of the marines, you play by his rules or face the consequences. Major Lincoln is the one leading the rescue attempt, bringing the back-up required to hopefully help the stranded marines, spends most of the film in a helicopter racing to the scene. Olivia Winston is the computer operative at the embassy, she like Evan has bigger dreams when it comes to rising up through the military rankings.
Performances – Charlie Weber does take the leading role here where we follow his character entering the world, he works as a soldier never setting the world alight, which can be same for the whole cast sees Scott Adkins, Sasha Jackson and Dennis Haysbert.
Story – The story here follows a newly recruit marine in an US embassy that must deal with a siege from the locals on the building meaning he will join the marines to show off their skills to defend the embassy. This is one of the simplest stories you will ever see, we follow Evan as he and we learn the lay of the land, the siege is everything you would expect too, following the usual ideas of needing to have safety and out live the numbers that are trying to kill you. It does feel like the story is safe rather than challenging.
Action/War – The action plays into the war side of the film, we get plenty of military manoeuvres to see bullets flying around.
Settings – The settings in the film show us the embassy and how the marines operate within it, we see how this makes the positions difficult to defend.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is too by the books.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to follow military action film, it doesn’t do anything wrong, only it just seems to be by the book and overly safe.
Overall: Safe Military Film.
Evan notices somebody outside the normal outside the embassy, which soon sees him learning the lessons of the protocol. The marines find the embassy under siege and must use all their training to keep the Ambassador alive against countless enemies.
Thoughts on Jarhead 3: The Siege
Characters – Evan is the newest marine bought into the embassy, he does fill in the gaps for the protocol that must be followed by the team, learn to work with the rest of the unit and is the first to suspect something is going on around the embassy and ends up being the one leading the fight back. Gunny Raines is the leader of the marines, you play by his rules or face the consequences. Major Lincoln is the one leading the rescue attempt, bringing the back-up required to hopefully help the stranded marines, spends most of the film in a helicopter racing to the scene. Olivia Winston is the computer operative at the embassy, she like Evan has bigger dreams when it comes to rising up through the military rankings.
Performances – Charlie Weber does take the leading role here where we follow his character entering the world, he works as a soldier never setting the world alight, which can be same for the whole cast sees Scott Adkins, Sasha Jackson and Dennis Haysbert.
Story – The story here follows a newly recruit marine in an US embassy that must deal with a siege from the locals on the building meaning he will join the marines to show off their skills to defend the embassy. This is one of the simplest stories you will ever see, we follow Evan as he and we learn the lay of the land, the siege is everything you would expect too, following the usual ideas of needing to have safety and out live the numbers that are trying to kill you. It does feel like the story is safe rather than challenging.
Action/War – The action plays into the war side of the film, we get plenty of military manoeuvres to see bullets flying around.
Settings – The settings in the film show us the embassy and how the marines operate within it, we see how this makes the positions difficult to defend.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is too by the books.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to follow military action film, it doesn’t do anything wrong, only it just seems to be by the book and overly safe.
Overall: Safe Military Film.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Well paced (1 more)
Good characters
Third times a charm
I am not terribly well versed in Guy Ritchie films, however "Snatch" is one of my favorite films. I went into this with no expectations, and without even knowing the basic plot, I was greated with a wonderful experience.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
Isle of Skye: 2016
Book
Are you planning a visit to the Isle of Skye? Do you enjoy a walk in the country or a leisurely...
Los Angeles Stories
Book
A Los Angeles Times's and Southern California Indie Bookseller Association's Bestseller! Los Angeles...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
20th Century Fox releases Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul. Starring a new cast, as the previous cast ember kids aged out of their roles, it has Alecia Silverstone as Mom, Tom Everett Scott as Dad, Jason Drucker as Wimpy Kid Greg, and Charlie Wright as older brother Roderick.
Headed cross country to their MeeMaw’s 90th birthday, it’s a 4-day haul to Indiana, and Mom has banned all electronic devices.
At least from an adult perspective, I can understand the premise, seeing as the kids are always up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft these days, and having a “conversation” can be like pulling teeth. However, again from an adult perspective, this movie might have been better if the characters HAD been up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft for the trip.
There was lots of bathroom humor, which did seem to pull some laughs from my 8-year-old son, although maybe not as many as might have been expected (some of it, thankfully, was still over his head), but just had me shaking my head and wondering what has happened to good clean humor?
Greg’s main goal throughout the Long Haul is trying to erase or at least overcome his accidental internet sensationalism caught when he is filmed freaking out over a diaper he finds while playing in a ball-pit. He continues to try to re-route the family trip in order to get himself into a video with (what he sees as) a “famous” gamer who goes by Mac Digby, who will be at a convention in Indiana “only two inches away” from MeeMaw’s when looking at the map. His brother Roderick wants to become famous by drumming along in a video game and Greg manages to re-program the GPS in order to direct them closer to the gaming convention.
Along the way, they stop at a county fair and the youngest Heffley, Manny (played by twins Dylan and Wyatt Walters) manages to win an adorable baby piglet, who might honestly have the best role in the film. Who doesn’t like baby pigs?
There are more hijinks along the way in some sort of feud with another family, and in what might be the best part of the film, an homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho”.
All in all, though, something is seriously lost in translation between the popular Jeff Kinney kids novel that the movie is based on, and this film. Previous installments of the Wimpy Kid movies have not been nearly as unpalatable to me. My son says that he likes this one, but even he says, “the book was better” and he’s only 8.
Between the poop, pee and puke “humor” and the never addressed or resolved lying of the kids and even dad, it’s not a movie I could really appreciate.
Headed cross country to their MeeMaw’s 90th birthday, it’s a 4-day haul to Indiana, and Mom has banned all electronic devices.
At least from an adult perspective, I can understand the premise, seeing as the kids are always up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft these days, and having a “conversation” can be like pulling teeth. However, again from an adult perspective, this movie might have been better if the characters HAD been up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft for the trip.
There was lots of bathroom humor, which did seem to pull some laughs from my 8-year-old son, although maybe not as many as might have been expected (some of it, thankfully, was still over his head), but just had me shaking my head and wondering what has happened to good clean humor?
Greg’s main goal throughout the Long Haul is trying to erase or at least overcome his accidental internet sensationalism caught when he is filmed freaking out over a diaper he finds while playing in a ball-pit. He continues to try to re-route the family trip in order to get himself into a video with (what he sees as) a “famous” gamer who goes by Mac Digby, who will be at a convention in Indiana “only two inches away” from MeeMaw’s when looking at the map. His brother Roderick wants to become famous by drumming along in a video game and Greg manages to re-program the GPS in order to direct them closer to the gaming convention.
Along the way, they stop at a county fair and the youngest Heffley, Manny (played by twins Dylan and Wyatt Walters) manages to win an adorable baby piglet, who might honestly have the best role in the film. Who doesn’t like baby pigs?
There are more hijinks along the way in some sort of feud with another family, and in what might be the best part of the film, an homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho”.
All in all, though, something is seriously lost in translation between the popular Jeff Kinney kids novel that the movie is based on, and this film. Previous installments of the Wimpy Kid movies have not been nearly as unpalatable to me. My son says that he likes this one, but even he says, “the book was better” and he’s only 8.
Between the poop, pee and puke “humor” and the never addressed or resolved lying of the kids and even dad, it’s not a movie I could really appreciate.
The Library Book
Book
A dazzling love letter to a beloved institution—and an investigation into one of its greatest...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Purge: Election Year (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Deathly Dull
The Purge series has set itself as one of the front-runners in modern horror. The first film, starring Ethan Hawke, was a huge success, bringing with it one of the best stories seen in the genre for decades.
Its successor, Anarchy, was warmly received – namely for its greater focus on the night of crime itself, rather than the plight of one family. Naturally, another sequel was always going to be on the cards and Election Year continues the franchise. But does it continue the positive trend?
With only one returning cast member, Frank Grillo’s brooding Leo Barnes, The Purge: Election Year goes for a more political approach than its horror-rooted predecessors and director James DeMonaco was brave in altering the formula. He gets through it – but only by the skin of his teeth.
As a young girl, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) survived the annual night of lawlessness that took the lives of her family members. As a presidential candidate, Roan is determined to end the yearly tradition of blood lust once and for all. When her opponents hatch a deadly scheme, the senator finds herself trapped on the streets of Washington, D.C., just as the latest Purge gets underway. Now, it’s up to Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), her head of security, to keep her alive during the next 12 hours of mayhem.
The first major stumbling block Election Year faces is its lack of originality. Yes, the basic formula goes for a more political tone but the story itself is a near carbon copy of its predecessor. It’s unfortunate that once again, despite the plight of fans, the production studio continues to overlook the most fascinating part of the Purge, its inception.
Once again we are forced to sit through the hack and slash killings, only this time the acting isn’t as good and the majority of scares are signposted from the off. The ones that aren’t; well they’re in the trailer. It’s such a shame that a series with such promise has resorted to rehashing the same “tricks” to sell tickets.
The cast gel together well but the acting is below par and the dialogue is at times, dreadful with the same three expletives doing the rounds from character to character. Frank Grillo is underused with Elizabeth Mitchell’s preachy politician mistakenly put in the foreground. By far the most interesting person throughout the course of the film is Mykelti Williamson’s deli owner Joe, but he is lumbered with shockingly bad catchphrases.
The cinematography is very plain and the city setting isn’t utilised well at all. Washington should’ve been an exceptional place to helm a film about a night of legalised murder, but instead the audience is confined to its dimly-lit backstreets and alleys.
Overall, The Purge: Election Year is a step in the wrong direction for a series that showed such promise. Creating a film that, despite its intriguing political intentions, is exactly the same as its predecessor is sheer laziness and I don’t like to use this word when reviewing films, but it’s just completely and utterly boring.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/26/deathly-dull-the-purge-election-year-review/
Its successor, Anarchy, was warmly received – namely for its greater focus on the night of crime itself, rather than the plight of one family. Naturally, another sequel was always going to be on the cards and Election Year continues the franchise. But does it continue the positive trend?
With only one returning cast member, Frank Grillo’s brooding Leo Barnes, The Purge: Election Year goes for a more political approach than its horror-rooted predecessors and director James DeMonaco was brave in altering the formula. He gets through it – but only by the skin of his teeth.
As a young girl, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) survived the annual night of lawlessness that took the lives of her family members. As a presidential candidate, Roan is determined to end the yearly tradition of blood lust once and for all. When her opponents hatch a deadly scheme, the senator finds herself trapped on the streets of Washington, D.C., just as the latest Purge gets underway. Now, it’s up to Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), her head of security, to keep her alive during the next 12 hours of mayhem.
The first major stumbling block Election Year faces is its lack of originality. Yes, the basic formula goes for a more political tone but the story itself is a near carbon copy of its predecessor. It’s unfortunate that once again, despite the plight of fans, the production studio continues to overlook the most fascinating part of the Purge, its inception.
Once again we are forced to sit through the hack and slash killings, only this time the acting isn’t as good and the majority of scares are signposted from the off. The ones that aren’t; well they’re in the trailer. It’s such a shame that a series with such promise has resorted to rehashing the same “tricks” to sell tickets.
The cast gel together well but the acting is below par and the dialogue is at times, dreadful with the same three expletives doing the rounds from character to character. Frank Grillo is underused with Elizabeth Mitchell’s preachy politician mistakenly put in the foreground. By far the most interesting person throughout the course of the film is Mykelti Williamson’s deli owner Joe, but he is lumbered with shockingly bad catchphrases.
The cinematography is very plain and the city setting isn’t utilised well at all. Washington should’ve been an exceptional place to helm a film about a night of legalised murder, but instead the audience is confined to its dimly-lit backstreets and alleys.
Overall, The Purge: Election Year is a step in the wrong direction for a series that showed such promise. Creating a film that, despite its intriguing political intentions, is exactly the same as its predecessor is sheer laziness and I don’t like to use this word when reviewing films, but it’s just completely and utterly boring.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/26/deathly-dull-the-purge-election-year-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated 100 Streets (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 100 Streets starts as we meet our characters, troublemaking drug dealing thief Kingsley (Dramah), former rugby player Max (Elba) who is going through a marriage problem after his own affair with his wife Emily (Arterton) who in an act of revenge is dating photographer Jake (Cullen). The final couple we meet are cabbie George (Creed-Miles) and Kathy (Wareing) who are trying to adopt a child, though his past is causing problems in this pursuit.
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/