Search
Search results
The Chairport (1 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 4, 2018
Real action (3 more)
Real stunts
Fantastically scored
Beautiful locations and cinematography
Pay the admission, accept this mission!
(Review from www.thechairport.com)When the Mission Impossible film franchise started it had a slightly rocky start. After a great first film, the second film fell short of the mark. Watching those first two films now you can see how different they are to the Mission we know now. Ever since the second Mission film, ever since JJ Abrams and the Bad Robot team took over, the Mission franchise has been ageing like a fine wine. Actually, it’s been ageing like Tom Cruise. Fallout, the sixth film in the Mission franchise is the best yet and easily one of the best action films of all time and it’s all thanks to its real action.
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Cold Moon (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
At first glance this looks like most other by the numbers Horror/Thriller movies with a cast of people you will recognize straight away but take a while to place where from. However give it a minute because this movie has some really stellar performances from the core cast which considering the concept is just bonkers enough to take you out of it completely, I find this to be nothing short of incredible.
THE BLURB:
In a sleepy southern town, the Larkin family suffers a terrible tragedy. Now the Larkin’s are about to endure another: Traffic lights blink an eerie warning, a ghostly visage prowls in the streets, and graves erupt from the local cemetery in an implacable march of terror . . . And beneath the murky surface of the river, a shifting, almost human shape slowly takes form to seek a terrible vengeance.
I found this movie to be way more Thriller than Horror, sure there are some solid as hell jump scares but one of the defining points in a Horror is that we don’t find out who the man in the mask is till the last quarter of the movie. In Cold Moon we know who the killer is early on and the film interestingly begins to focus on the rapid decline of our killers mind. Being haunted by the eerie ghosts of his victims, leading him to drink heavily, become careless and basically begin to lose his shit… Well that is where this movie cuts its teeth and showcases not only what our core cast can do but how effortlessly our Director/Writer can craft his tale.
Griff Furst has crafted a pretty eerie, Good looking, Atmospheric and Clever movie from the original novel written by the late Michael McDowell, author of Beetlejuice and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Not only that but he managed to perfectly cast his roles from top to bottom **In my eyes, of course**. So lets touch on a couple of those people you know but may not place.
Josh Stewart from mostly everything, most notably for me he was Bane’s main henchmen in Dark Knight Rises. He is great in this flick, given a real chance to show us his range and I was pleased to see more of him. Frank Whaley from almost everything ever and he is fantastic in this. Up and Coming Robbie Kay from Tv show Once Upon A Time puts in a pretty strong performance. Ladies and Gentlemen we are even treated to some Christopher Lloyd, Doc Brown-ing all over the place.
Oh crap I almost forgot we are given a Tommy Wiseau cameo that is a real treat… Listen closely for his one line “He’s tearing him Apart”. Awww man now I wanna watch the room.
I recommend the hell out of this movie, is it amazing?? Not really… But its good fun, pretty clever, great performances and entertaining as hell. So a definite recommend.
THE BLURB:
In a sleepy southern town, the Larkin family suffers a terrible tragedy. Now the Larkin’s are about to endure another: Traffic lights blink an eerie warning, a ghostly visage prowls in the streets, and graves erupt from the local cemetery in an implacable march of terror . . . And beneath the murky surface of the river, a shifting, almost human shape slowly takes form to seek a terrible vengeance.
I found this movie to be way more Thriller than Horror, sure there are some solid as hell jump scares but one of the defining points in a Horror is that we don’t find out who the man in the mask is till the last quarter of the movie. In Cold Moon we know who the killer is early on and the film interestingly begins to focus on the rapid decline of our killers mind. Being haunted by the eerie ghosts of his victims, leading him to drink heavily, become careless and basically begin to lose his shit… Well that is where this movie cuts its teeth and showcases not only what our core cast can do but how effortlessly our Director/Writer can craft his tale.
Griff Furst has crafted a pretty eerie, Good looking, Atmospheric and Clever movie from the original novel written by the late Michael McDowell, author of Beetlejuice and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Not only that but he managed to perfectly cast his roles from top to bottom **In my eyes, of course**. So lets touch on a couple of those people you know but may not place.
Josh Stewart from mostly everything, most notably for me he was Bane’s main henchmen in Dark Knight Rises. He is great in this flick, given a real chance to show us his range and I was pleased to see more of him. Frank Whaley from almost everything ever and he is fantastic in this. Up and Coming Robbie Kay from Tv show Once Upon A Time puts in a pretty strong performance. Ladies and Gentlemen we are even treated to some Christopher Lloyd, Doc Brown-ing all over the place.
Oh crap I almost forgot we are given a Tommy Wiseau cameo that is a real treat… Listen closely for his one line “He’s tearing him Apart”. Awww man now I wanna watch the room.
I recommend the hell out of this movie, is it amazing?? Not really… But its good fun, pretty clever, great performances and entertaining as hell. So a definite recommend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Collection (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From the creative yet somewhat disturbed minds of Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton (Saw IV, V VI and 3D). The Collection is a suspense horror that will keep you guessing and on the edge of your seats. The film is based on an insane masked killer who “collects” bodies after his victims undergo a series of macabre torture and death. Staring Josh Stewart (The Dark Knight Rises) who portrays a man named Arkin who has been tortured himself. Arkin is forced to help find Elena who is portrayed by Emma Fitzpatrick (The Social Network) who decided to attend an underground rave with her friends and was the only one who survived a brutal bloody massacre on the entire club. Christopher McDonald (“Boardwalk Empire”) is Elena’s father and is extremely wealthy and hires a team to help locate Elena and bring down this masked crazed killer. Arkin is forced to help the team by going back to the very place he had once escaped to help find Elena. The team is lead into a maze of disturbing rooms and halls booby-trapped with all sorts of insane killing machines. Will Elena and the team be able to return safely to their families?
Fans of the Saw films will find that The Collection is a spitting image of its sister movie with the same gruesome killer and horrific killing machines. Granted that the ideas may be similar the stories are quite different and executed very well. The film is very bloody yet heroic at the same time and though some scenes and dialog proved to be quite ridiculous as generated by the audience’s laughter, in the end was somewhat of an entertaining thrill ride. The film is not your run of the mill slasher film where the killer is after a young group of kids who are being chased in a forest out in the middle of nowhere. The victims in this film are all types of people who are wanted for the killers collection of gruesome horrors.
You do not need to see the previous film in the series “The Collector” to enjoy this film but the background knowledge does help with the mythos of the character.
Though the film is somewhat entertaining with all its gruesomeness, I seem to be more of a fan of the Saw franchise. Even with the same sort of plot of mice all headed for the cheese just with a bunch of death traps in the way. It just seemed as though there wasn’t really a back story and it did not expand upon the previous film that much. Granted one really is not needed it may have helped with the flow of the film. The Collection is recommended but is not a must see film and does not add to the excitement of movies to come in the coming years.
Fans of the Saw films will find that The Collection is a spitting image of its sister movie with the same gruesome killer and horrific killing machines. Granted that the ideas may be similar the stories are quite different and executed very well. The film is very bloody yet heroic at the same time and though some scenes and dialog proved to be quite ridiculous as generated by the audience’s laughter, in the end was somewhat of an entertaining thrill ride. The film is not your run of the mill slasher film where the killer is after a young group of kids who are being chased in a forest out in the middle of nowhere. The victims in this film are all types of people who are wanted for the killers collection of gruesome horrors.
You do not need to see the previous film in the series “The Collector” to enjoy this film but the background knowledge does help with the mythos of the character.
Though the film is somewhat entertaining with all its gruesomeness, I seem to be more of a fan of the Saw franchise. Even with the same sort of plot of mice all headed for the cheese just with a bunch of death traps in the way. It just seemed as though there wasn’t really a back story and it did not expand upon the previous film that much. Granted one really is not needed it may have helped with the flow of the film. The Collection is recommended but is not a must see film and does not add to the excitement of movies to come in the coming years.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Legend (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Have you heard of Legend? Not the movie from the mid-eighties, but the story of Ronnie and Reggie Kray (Tom Hardy, playing both brothers). Don’t know who they are, that’s okay, neither did I. But if you are across the pond and are reading this, you probably do. They Kray brothers are twins, and perhaps the most notorious gangsters in London history. Think John Dillinger, or Al Capone, of the UK.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Interstellar (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For my money, Christopher Nolan is the best director and storyteller in the film industry today. Over the years he has grown with each film he has created. In his early work, like Following, Memento, and Insomniac, he experimented with different notions of how we as an audience perceived a story unfold on film. In each of those films he learned techniques that he carried with him as he moved onto bigger commercial success’ like The Dark Knight Trilogy and The Prestige. All of those techniques, culminated in my humble opinion, his masterpiece with 2010s Inception. Now he is back, with a space exploration film for this generation that rivals Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space odyssey with an added dash of 1997s Contact.
Everything you expect from a Nolan film his here. Stunning visuals that not only leave us breathless at the vastness and beauty of space and other worlds, but also character driven framing that is subtle enough for us to be able to understand and focus on this character driven story. We are driven forward by one man’s mission to save the earth, but on a more humanizing level, his family. It is this constant thread, especially the bond of Love between a father and daughter, which holds this majestic film together from start to finish. Those who miss this focus or nitpick at the science of it all may be disappointed and feel the film is too big to be concluded with such a simple notion. However those who are willing to concede that impressive visuals do not need to be concluded on an ostentatious scale for there to be a grandiose impact, will find satisfaction at a film that makes us contemplate our place in time and space.
If these stunning visuals are the face of this film, then the score is undoubtedly the emotion. Nolan once again teams up with Academy Award winning composer Hans Zimmer, to produce a stunningly moving and heartfelt score that not only propels forward in our exploration of the unknown, but at times is our only friend in letting us know it is ok to breath.
Perhaps it is just the gravity of the work that Nolan has done in the last few years, but the actors in this film know the stakes and each came to play. The cast each elevate their performances not only for themselves but for each other. Led by Academy Award Winner winners Mathew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, as well as Academy Award Nominee Jessica Chastain, the entire cast of Interstellar deliver excellent performances that cause us not only relate, but to feel the world at large and the relationships with each other. I was especially impressed with the young Mackenzie Foy, whose relationship with McConaughey is crucial to the story being able to hold together for the entire film.
In closing, Interstellar is a beautiful film to behold with a story that revolves around exploration, survival, and love told in an epic way both visually and audibly. For some there may be a few make or break moments, but if you just focus on the story and world being told to you, it will all make sense. The film’s running time is 2 hours and 49 minutes which may seem like much to some, however because Interstellar is an experience, not just a film, the length is hardly noticeable as a bad thing. After walking away, you will want to see this experience in the theaters again, especially in IMAX for the best possible visuals and audio.
Everything you expect from a Nolan film his here. Stunning visuals that not only leave us breathless at the vastness and beauty of space and other worlds, but also character driven framing that is subtle enough for us to be able to understand and focus on this character driven story. We are driven forward by one man’s mission to save the earth, but on a more humanizing level, his family. It is this constant thread, especially the bond of Love between a father and daughter, which holds this majestic film together from start to finish. Those who miss this focus or nitpick at the science of it all may be disappointed and feel the film is too big to be concluded with such a simple notion. However those who are willing to concede that impressive visuals do not need to be concluded on an ostentatious scale for there to be a grandiose impact, will find satisfaction at a film that makes us contemplate our place in time and space.
If these stunning visuals are the face of this film, then the score is undoubtedly the emotion. Nolan once again teams up with Academy Award winning composer Hans Zimmer, to produce a stunningly moving and heartfelt score that not only propels forward in our exploration of the unknown, but at times is our only friend in letting us know it is ok to breath.
Perhaps it is just the gravity of the work that Nolan has done in the last few years, but the actors in this film know the stakes and each came to play. The cast each elevate their performances not only for themselves but for each other. Led by Academy Award Winner winners Mathew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, as well as Academy Award Nominee Jessica Chastain, the entire cast of Interstellar deliver excellent performances that cause us not only relate, but to feel the world at large and the relationships with each other. I was especially impressed with the young Mackenzie Foy, whose relationship with McConaughey is crucial to the story being able to hold together for the entire film.
In closing, Interstellar is a beautiful film to behold with a story that revolves around exploration, survival, and love told in an epic way both visually and audibly. For some there may be a few make or break moments, but if you just focus on the story and world being told to you, it will all make sense. The film’s running time is 2 hours and 49 minutes which may seem like much to some, however because Interstellar is an experience, not just a film, the length is hardly noticeable as a bad thing. After walking away, you will want to see this experience in the theaters again, especially in IMAX for the best possible visuals and audio.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 18, 2017
Messy introduction (1 more)
Steppenwolf
A really pleasant surprise
PRE-MOVIE THOUGHTS: Up until very recently, I'd been cautiously optimistic regarding Justice League. I enjoyed Man of Steel, despite some faults, and I thought that Henry Cavill was perfectly suited to the role. I didn't mind Batman V Superman so much either, despite Jesse Eisenbergs Lex Luthor constantly trying to ruin it. The best thing about Batman V Superman though was Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, which is why her standalone origin movie deservedly did so well earlier this year. But the characters of Superman and Batman were beginning to get a bit of a raw deal in my opinion, and that was starting to piss me off. The original Superman movie with Christopher Reeve, along with Christopher Nolans Dark Knight trilogy, are among my favourite films and these latest movies just weren't doing them 'justice'. Suicide Squad showed that DC couldn't do an ensemble movie, which cast a lot of doubt over just how good Justice League was going to be. And when reports came in of re-shoots and a change of director, it wasn't really looking good. But some of the more recent trailers and teasers actually didn't look so bad, so maybe there wasn't too much to be worried about. Until a few days ago that is, when about 90% of the reviews I read didn't give it higher than two stars! And those that gave it higher were still highlighting some of the weaknesses I've already mentioned here. So, I headed into the cinema, expecting to be pissed off again. But seriously, genuinely hoping I wasn't.
POST-MOVIE REVIEW: Justice League doesn't start things off too well. The world is still mourning the death of Superman, and a few pointless scenes try to highlight that loss and despair. Batman and Wonder Woman appear in a couple of standalone battles to remind us what they're capable of, but those scenes also seem rushed and out of place. We have three new team members to be introduced to as well, along with the big bad of the movie. Whereas Marvel's Avengers took the time to introduce their team over a series of standalone movies, we've had no such luxury in the run up to Justice League, aside from some brief glimpses in previous movies. It all just seems like a rush to get things to the point where the team are together and can start having some fun. Everything up until that point just seems cobbled together. Lacking coherence, and just a little bit dull.
Talking of dull, once again the big bad of the movie is a bit of a let down. Steppenwolf appears on Earth in search of three powerful cubes which when combined together will give him the ability to forge the Earth into something more appealing to him, or something like that anyway. He's accompanied by thousands of flying zombie man-bug type creatures and the whole thing just reeks of supervillain plotlines we've seen many times before. Steppenwolf himself is entirely CGI, and at times the CGI just doesn't look that good.
Onto the league themselves. Well, Wonder Woman is still the most impressive of them all, proving to be a real natural leader. Batman, although greatly improved on his Batman V Superman appearance, just seems like he can't be bothered. Tired and uninterested at times. This might be partly down to Ben Affleck, who never really seemed suited to the role in my opinion. If the rumours of him being recast in the next standalone Batman movie are true, then it may well be for the best. Even if the thought of yet another actor taking on the role so soon already is extremely frustrating.
The two biggest surprise for me were the two characters I was initially least interested about when heading in to the cinema. Cyborg, from his introduction in BvS and glimpses in the trailers, just seemed pointless. But, despite that we gloss over his back story somewhat, actually proves himself to be a valuable and interesting member of the team. And as for The Flash, he manages to get many of the movies better lines and scenes while he tries to come to terms with what he can actually do with his power ("Up until now I usually just run really fast and push people").
Slightly disappointing though was Aquaman. Not the character himself, just the fact that we barely get a glimpse of his undersea world, before he finds himself thrust into the league, reduced to just being some extra muscle. His is a role which would have greatly benefited from a standalone origin movie before appearing in this one.
When the team eventually do come together is when the movie really steps up a gear. They work really well together and I really enjoyed the battle scenes. It soon becomes clear though, that they cannot defeat Steppenwolf on their own, and need somebody even more powerful to help them out.
It's no secret, despite his absence from the trailers, that Superman returns to become part of the league. I felt that this was handled really well and the team helping to overcome his initial disorientation was a really fun scene. When he is fully recovered and battling the bad guys, it's the kind of Superman we all know and love and everything involving him is just hugely enjoyable.
If it wasn't for the rushed, incoherent introduction to the movie, I would have rated this a lot higher. For me, the rest of the movie is right up there with this years Wonder Woman, and is a serious step in the right direction for DC. A really pleasant surprise...
POST-MOVIE REVIEW: Justice League doesn't start things off too well. The world is still mourning the death of Superman, and a few pointless scenes try to highlight that loss and despair. Batman and Wonder Woman appear in a couple of standalone battles to remind us what they're capable of, but those scenes also seem rushed and out of place. We have three new team members to be introduced to as well, along with the big bad of the movie. Whereas Marvel's Avengers took the time to introduce their team over a series of standalone movies, we've had no such luxury in the run up to Justice League, aside from some brief glimpses in previous movies. It all just seems like a rush to get things to the point where the team are together and can start having some fun. Everything up until that point just seems cobbled together. Lacking coherence, and just a little bit dull.
Talking of dull, once again the big bad of the movie is a bit of a let down. Steppenwolf appears on Earth in search of three powerful cubes which when combined together will give him the ability to forge the Earth into something more appealing to him, or something like that anyway. He's accompanied by thousands of flying zombie man-bug type creatures and the whole thing just reeks of supervillain plotlines we've seen many times before. Steppenwolf himself is entirely CGI, and at times the CGI just doesn't look that good.
Onto the league themselves. Well, Wonder Woman is still the most impressive of them all, proving to be a real natural leader. Batman, although greatly improved on his Batman V Superman appearance, just seems like he can't be bothered. Tired and uninterested at times. This might be partly down to Ben Affleck, who never really seemed suited to the role in my opinion. If the rumours of him being recast in the next standalone Batman movie are true, then it may well be for the best. Even if the thought of yet another actor taking on the role so soon already is extremely frustrating.
The two biggest surprise for me were the two characters I was initially least interested about when heading in to the cinema. Cyborg, from his introduction in BvS and glimpses in the trailers, just seemed pointless. But, despite that we gloss over his back story somewhat, actually proves himself to be a valuable and interesting member of the team. And as for The Flash, he manages to get many of the movies better lines and scenes while he tries to come to terms with what he can actually do with his power ("Up until now I usually just run really fast and push people").
Slightly disappointing though was Aquaman. Not the character himself, just the fact that we barely get a glimpse of his undersea world, before he finds himself thrust into the league, reduced to just being some extra muscle. His is a role which would have greatly benefited from a standalone origin movie before appearing in this one.
When the team eventually do come together is when the movie really steps up a gear. They work really well together and I really enjoyed the battle scenes. It soon becomes clear though, that they cannot defeat Steppenwolf on their own, and need somebody even more powerful to help them out.
It's no secret, despite his absence from the trailers, that Superman returns to become part of the league. I felt that this was handled really well and the team helping to overcome his initial disorientation was a really fun scene. When he is fully recovered and battling the bad guys, it's the kind of Superman we all know and love and everything involving him is just hugely enjoyable.
If it wasn't for the rushed, incoherent introduction to the movie, I would have rated this a lot higher. For me, the rest of the movie is right up there with this years Wonder Woman, and is a serious step in the right direction for DC. A really pleasant surprise...
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Transcendence (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
First time director and Academy award-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.