Search
Search results
Felipe (17 KP) rated Chaplin (1992) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
A modern tragedy meant to be one of the greats
Contains spoilers, click to show
Richard Attenborough delivers another masterpiece of cinematic biography and is a worthy successor to Ghandi. The structure of the film is told as a flashback while Charlie Chaplin is writing his autobiography with a fictional editor that does not exist. We see for the first time the flaws of who Chaplin is as a person and we see him confront his past in a way that is painful not unlike how it is painful when we relive moments in our lives we would rather choose to forget. However, the success of the film is how it strips the illusion of who Chaplin was and presents to us a person who is tragically flawed but who is unbale to appreciate his own genius. An example is when Chaplin's version of the invention of the Tramp is seen for what he imagined it to be an idealized moment in which the character is calling to him except for what it really was, We see the reality of the movies during this time; a hectic spur of the moment improvised invention drawn from real life. Yet we see Chaplin as the midwife to this new artform the movies and we see him develop it for what it is, the highest expression of art that stirs our imagination and makes us believe anything is possible. We even cry during Chaplin's moments of personal tragedy; the insanity and loss of his mother; repeated failed marriages; the death of his best friend, Douglas Fairbanks and finally his tragic and painful exile from America the only place he knew as home all taking place in the backdrop of the invention and evolution of cinema. However, I feel that in the end Chaplin is the one that comes out triumphant. In the last moments of the movie we see how Chaplin despairs that he feels that he has been forgotten and made irrelevant by the changing times; he feels that the weight of not only his age but the weight of the world on his shoulders and yet we see that everything he believes himself to be is completely wrong when Hollywood bestows on him the greatest honor which is not only the special Oscar but also a standing ovation. His final triumph is to be made a knight by Queen Elizabeth II, we are truly made to see that although flawed he is triumphant in the end.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lost City of Z (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as the British Explorer Colonel Percival Fawcett, who disappeared on an expedition in search of an ancient city and civilization in the Amazon. The film centers on the true-life adventure of Col Fawcett and his journey to find evidence of a lost people while engaging audiences in the ego and superiority complex that much of western civilization finds itself.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Marvel's Daredevil - Season 2 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Brilliant writing (1 more)
Fantastic performances
Down and Dirty Crimefighting
These shows are fantastic. The Netflix/Marvel TV universe that has been built off of the back of these shows is awesome. If you are a fan of the Marvel Max comic books, then these shows have been made for you. Marvel reintroduces Daredevil (and Punisher in Daredevil Season 2,) in epic fashion. This is a world where the events of the Avengers movies have taken place, but these are gritty, street level stories that tell tales of a more personal, visceral kind of battle. If you like your Marvel superheroes, but find the Avengers too tame, then wade right in. These heroes are foul mouthed, real people who happen to have some amazing abilities. Charlie Cox is a fantastic Matt Murdock and Krysten Ritter is a brilliant Jessica Jones, the supporting characters are also well implemented, such as Elektra, Stick, Foggy Nelson, Karen Paige, Night Nurse, Nuke, Luke Cage and Trish. The villains in each show are also some of the best the Marvel have had so far, Vincent D’Onofrio plays a tragic, but still scheming and suitably evil version of Kingpin, which gives the character a depth that hasn’t yet been explored. I really hope that they use the character in the solo Spiderman movie. David Tennant plays Killgrave or The Purple Man in Jessica Jones and he also kills it, you can tell he really had fun with the role too, which makes him even more entertaining whenever he is onscreen. Season 2 of Daredevil just recently finished up and during it we were introduced to the new Punisher, played by Jon Bernthal, who again gives us the chance to explore the character and his psyche to a level that we haven’t seen before. He is still the hardcore badass that you would expect, but his mentality in this universe goes deeper than that and that is something that is very cool to see. Overall I have loved every episode of these shows to date and as long as they carry on the tone and the overall production standard that they have set themselves so far, I can’t wait to see what else this universe has to offer. There is also exciting rumours stating that they could appear in the Avengers Infinity War films. I can’t wait to see all of this and I really feel that all of these characters show great potential. Keep doing what you are doing Marvel, because it is truly awesome. Doing these character’s origin stories in an R rated TV show setting was a great idea and the writing and performances on Netflix stand up to any show on HBO or AMC. If you haven’t seen the entirety of these shows yet, stop what you are doing and go marathon them right now, you will not regret it.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Confidence in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Many university students will be able to relate to the panic and dread caused by dissertations and final exams. <i>Confidence</i>, co-written by Rowland Manthorpe and Kirstin Smith, is set at an English university where third year students are cramming in revision sessions in the lead up to their examinations. This story combines two character’s experiences which, although rarely overlap, reveal the effects of the lack of and over-confidence.
Whilst Ellie struggles with her dissertation, Charlie believes that he will successfully complete his degree without the need to revise, giving him more time to focus on his social (and sex) life. Both students are distracted by their less-than-perfect social lives, jeopardizing their exam results and discover that life is not at all what they predicted it to be.
<i>Confidence</i> is a book of multiple stories. Firstly (and secondly) there are Ellie’s and Charlie’s predicaments, but the remainder of the novel contains an autobiography of sorts about the nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche – whom Ellie is penning her philosophy dissertation on. Whether these sections are an example of a student essay – are the authors aware that they are all written in the third person these days? – Nietzsche’s theories regarding confidence are highly relevant to the theme of the book.
The academically well-written sections about Nietzsche, his life and his spiral into insanity are very interesting to read. Composed in an essay-like format, the information is presented in an easy-to-understand, clear manner, making what in reality is a difficult concept to fathom, simple to comprehend. The fictional narrative, however, is much less pleasing in comparison. Filled with expletives, Manthorpe and Smith paint a stereotypical view of student life. Instead of the hard-working and dedicated people that many students are, they are depicted as alcoholic sex-maniacs.
Whilst negatively categorizing students, other issues are also raised such as feminism and mental health. Whereas these concerns are important topics in the twenty first century, the stigma and inaccurate knowledge about illnesses such as Anorexia is almost unforgivable – “[She] would grow out of it…” Seriously?!
As a story,<i> Confidence</i> falls well below my expectations. Although the stresses of university life are relatable, the characters go to extremes, making their scenarios all the more unrealistic. The essay on Nietzsche on the other hand is an enjoyable, informative piece of writing, which saves <i>Confidence</i> from the fate of a completely negative review. Perhaps my interest in philosophy helped me appreciate the depth of detail and knowledge written about Nietzsche, however I still maintain that it has been composed in such a way as to make it entertaining. Perhaps created with a student audience in mind, <i>Confidence</i> will most likely appeal to readers with the ability to think about the world from a philosophical perspective.
Many university students will be able to relate to the panic and dread caused by dissertations and final exams. <i>Confidence</i>, co-written by Rowland Manthorpe and Kirstin Smith, is set at an English university where third year students are cramming in revision sessions in the lead up to their examinations. This story combines two character’s experiences which, although rarely overlap, reveal the effects of the lack of and over-confidence.
Whilst Ellie struggles with her dissertation, Charlie believes that he will successfully complete his degree without the need to revise, giving him more time to focus on his social (and sex) life. Both students are distracted by their less-than-perfect social lives, jeopardizing their exam results and discover that life is not at all what they predicted it to be.
<i>Confidence</i> is a book of multiple stories. Firstly (and secondly) there are Ellie’s and Charlie’s predicaments, but the remainder of the novel contains an autobiography of sorts about the nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche – whom Ellie is penning her philosophy dissertation on. Whether these sections are an example of a student essay – are the authors aware that they are all written in the third person these days? – Nietzsche’s theories regarding confidence are highly relevant to the theme of the book.
The academically well-written sections about Nietzsche, his life and his spiral into insanity are very interesting to read. Composed in an essay-like format, the information is presented in an easy-to-understand, clear manner, making what in reality is a difficult concept to fathom, simple to comprehend. The fictional narrative, however, is much less pleasing in comparison. Filled with expletives, Manthorpe and Smith paint a stereotypical view of student life. Instead of the hard-working and dedicated people that many students are, they are depicted as alcoholic sex-maniacs.
Whilst negatively categorizing students, other issues are also raised such as feminism and mental health. Whereas these concerns are important topics in the twenty first century, the stigma and inaccurate knowledge about illnesses such as Anorexia is almost unforgivable – “[She] would grow out of it…” Seriously?!
As a story,<i> Confidence</i> falls well below my expectations. Although the stresses of university life are relatable, the characters go to extremes, making their scenarios all the more unrealistic. The essay on Nietzsche on the other hand is an enjoyable, informative piece of writing, which saves <i>Confidence</i> from the fate of a completely negative review. Perhaps my interest in philosophy helped me appreciate the depth of detail and knowledge written about Nietzsche, however I still maintain that it has been composed in such a way as to make it entertaining. Perhaps created with a student audience in mind, <i>Confidence</i> will most likely appeal to readers with the ability to think about the world from a philosophical perspective.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney has made a career in books after the events in the films, she is completing her latest book tour right where it all started. With her back in town the killings start up again, Sidney must be the role model for her cousin who is going through the same situation she once did. Gale is now married to Dewey, she has given up the spotlight, but craves getting back into the field with the new killings offering her the chance. Dewey is now the sheriff who must now control the situation before it gets out of hand. We get the new potential victims or suspects here with Jill being Sidney’s cousin always tired of being in the shadow of her more famous family member, Kirby the rebellious teenager, Robbie who is filming every moment of his life for a reality YouTube network and Charlie is the leader of the film club. These characters do fit around the moulds of the original teens too.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return giving us good performances without needing to bring anything new to the performances. Of the new cast members nobody comes off in a shining performance which can disappoint in places as we have a wonderful set of talents in the film.
Story – The story here brings back our original characters just as a new killing spree has started in the area where it all started, with a new generation of victims and horror fans. The idea for this story comes from the idea that we have too many sequels or reboots, which does help take away the serious nature from the film, the Ghostface does seem flat for the most part because they seem to get mixed into being too intense without a reason behind the killings. Of course this is more about poking fun with the meta of everything in the horror genre which is does achieve.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from the slasher angle, only this time we get a bloodier version of the kills showing the change in the genre. The mystery in this film comes from just who the killer is going to be this time, though we don’t get enough signs this time.
Settings – The film returns to the original town which does help with the idea of a reboot sequel piss take that we are dealing with.
Special Effects – The effects are the most disappointing side of this film because we have moments of CGI that don’t look as true as the practical moments.
Scene of the Movie – Deputy Judy being like Dewey is the funniest moments.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids are not really likeable.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid look at the horror genre with the countless sequels and remakes that we are seeing, it brings back enough relevant characters back but does fail to give us enough interest new ones.
Overall: Simple fun sequel.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return giving us good performances without needing to bring anything new to the performances. Of the new cast members nobody comes off in a shining performance which can disappoint in places as we have a wonderful set of talents in the film.
Story – The story here brings back our original characters just as a new killing spree has started in the area where it all started, with a new generation of victims and horror fans. The idea for this story comes from the idea that we have too many sequels or reboots, which does help take away the serious nature from the film, the Ghostface does seem flat for the most part because they seem to get mixed into being too intense without a reason behind the killings. Of course this is more about poking fun with the meta of everything in the horror genre which is does achieve.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from the slasher angle, only this time we get a bloodier version of the kills showing the change in the genre. The mystery in this film comes from just who the killer is going to be this time, though we don’t get enough signs this time.
Settings – The film returns to the original town which does help with the idea of a reboot sequel piss take that we are dealing with.
Special Effects – The effects are the most disappointing side of this film because we have moments of CGI that don’t look as true as the practical moments.
Scene of the Movie – Deputy Judy being like Dewey is the funniest moments.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids are not really likeable.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid look at the horror genre with the countless sequels and remakes that we are seeing, it brings back enough relevant characters back but does fail to give us enough interest new ones.
Overall: Simple fun sequel.
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.
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 (971 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.
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/