Search
Search results
Rat (1 KP) rated Peaky Blinders - Season 1 in TV
Mar 28, 2018
Forget everything you think you know about period drama
It would be easy to dismiss Peaky Blinders as just a British drama. It would be easy to dismiss it as just a period piece. It would be easy to claim that it was just a British Boardwalk Empire. You'd be so wrong to do so.
Every part of Peaky Blinders is perfection. From the superb acting of its regular cast (Cillian Murphy on a tv show? Sign me up!) to a roster of featured guests (Sam Neill? Tom Hardy? Adrien Brody? Who did the casting director sell their soul to, anyway?) to the use of colour and an outlaw music soundtrack that shouldn't work, but does (Nick Cave? PJ Harvey? Tom Waits? David Bowie? On a period drama? What is this? Freaking genius, that's what.)
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a family of Irish gypsy (their word, not mine) - blooded Birmingham bookmakers tries to recover from the horrors of that war and build up their business. Second oldest, Tommy Shelby (played expertly by Cillian Murphy who manages to play a gangster who is both ruthless and fragile with the ability to break your heart with a single look), came back from the war broken by his experiences, but determined to rise far beyond the limitations of his Small Heath upbringing. Not only does he have the expected clashes with those who want to keep him from growing his business (both criminal rivals and the police) but he has a family to run (with all the interpersonal conflicts that entails). All of this is set against a backdrop of political turmoil from the IRA and the rise of communist sympathy in the UK.
You shouldn't like Tommy Shelby, but he is written and acted so well that you won't be able to not like him. The same can be said for older brother, Arthur, younger siblings John, Ada, and Finn. If you don't love Aunt Polly, then you must have a problem with strong female characters.
Steven Knight has taken a world told to him through family legend and turned it into a world that you will be eager to inhabit an hour (or, if you're like everyone I know, a season) at a time. He writes a period drama that doesn't feel dated. The characters and their struggles are as relevant today as they were nearly a hundred years ago.
Take a chance on the show with the weird name and discover why there are very few casual Peaky Blinders fans. There's a reason why the late, great David Bowie was a huge fan and made sure that they would have a song from his last album before he died. There's a reason the show's dated fashion and hairstyles are making a comeback, why Peaky Blinders pubs and pub nights are popping up all over. It's that good. Check it out for yourself.
Every part of Peaky Blinders is perfection. From the superb acting of its regular cast (Cillian Murphy on a tv show? Sign me up!) to a roster of featured guests (Sam Neill? Tom Hardy? Adrien Brody? Who did the casting director sell their soul to, anyway?) to the use of colour and an outlaw music soundtrack that shouldn't work, but does (Nick Cave? PJ Harvey? Tom Waits? David Bowie? On a period drama? What is this? Freaking genius, that's what.)
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a family of Irish gypsy (their word, not mine) - blooded Birmingham bookmakers tries to recover from the horrors of that war and build up their business. Second oldest, Tommy Shelby (played expertly by Cillian Murphy who manages to play a gangster who is both ruthless and fragile with the ability to break your heart with a single look), came back from the war broken by his experiences, but determined to rise far beyond the limitations of his Small Heath upbringing. Not only does he have the expected clashes with those who want to keep him from growing his business (both criminal rivals and the police) but he has a family to run (with all the interpersonal conflicts that entails). All of this is set against a backdrop of political turmoil from the IRA and the rise of communist sympathy in the UK.
You shouldn't like Tommy Shelby, but he is written and acted so well that you won't be able to not like him. The same can be said for older brother, Arthur, younger siblings John, Ada, and Finn. If you don't love Aunt Polly, then you must have a problem with strong female characters.
Steven Knight has taken a world told to him through family legend and turned it into a world that you will be eager to inhabit an hour (or, if you're like everyone I know, a season) at a time. He writes a period drama that doesn't feel dated. The characters and their struggles are as relevant today as they were nearly a hundred years ago.
Take a chance on the show with the weird name and discover why there are very few casual Peaky Blinders fans. There's a reason why the late, great David Bowie was a huge fan and made sure that they would have a song from his last album before he died. There's a reason the show's dated fashion and hairstyles are making a comeback, why Peaky Blinders pubs and pub nights are popping up all over. It's that good. Check it out for yourself.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Peaky Blinders - Season 5 in TV
Sep 30, 2019
Shame about the loose ends
All in all, this is a rather good series and aside from the slightly dodgy Russian series (3), I’m impressed at how good a run Peaky Blinders has had. It’s not often anymore that you get such a consistently excellent series, and yes I am still ignoring series 3.
Unsurprisingly there are stellar performances in this yet again. Cillian Murphy is fantastic as we see Tommy spiralling into a terrible state, and I absolutely adore the rabid dog with a heart of gold that is Arthur. And Sam Claflin is truly slimy and despicable as Oswald Mosley, I didn’t realise I could hate him so much, he really embodies such an awful character. There are also some surprise deaths and reappearances in this too, some of which that were unexpected and very welcome.
The plot itself is good, but my main issue with this series is the amount of loose ends that haven’t been tied up by the end of the final episode. One of the things I’ve loved about the earlier series, is that everything is wrapped up rather nicely so the next series can start ‘afresh’ set a few years later. The same can’t be said about this fifth series, there’s a lot of plot points that aren’t cleared up and it’s rather frustrating that we have to wait another couple of years to find out!
Unsurprisingly there are stellar performances in this yet again. Cillian Murphy is fantastic as we see Tommy spiralling into a terrible state, and I absolutely adore the rabid dog with a heart of gold that is Arthur. And Sam Claflin is truly slimy and despicable as Oswald Mosley, I didn’t realise I could hate him so much, he really embodies such an awful character. There are also some surprise deaths and reappearances in this too, some of which that were unexpected and very welcome.
The plot itself is good, but my main issue with this series is the amount of loose ends that haven’t been tied up by the end of the final episode. One of the things I’ve loved about the earlier series, is that everything is wrapped up rather nicely so the next series can start ‘afresh’ set a few years later. The same can’t be said about this fifth series, there’s a lot of plot points that aren’t cleared up and it’s rather frustrating that we have to wait another couple of years to find out!
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Leaves you on the edge of your seat...constantly (2 more)
Harry Styles is a good actor
A thrilling story told with minimal dialogue
Intense throughout
Contains spoilers, click to show
Dunkirk is a historical film, directed by one of the best directors of this generation; Christopher Nolan. This film leaves your heart thumping and you are on the edge of you're seat constantly with a constant questioning of "will what I suspect to happen, happen?"
There isn't much dialogue in this film, and if it wasn't completely necessary, this film would have been just as great without any dialogue. The dialogue we hear is necessary to understanding the reasons that make the film so tense. For example there's a plot point that brings a feeling of suspense and heartbreak as we hear that not all of the men who are on the beach surviving, will make it out, because there is really only need for so many but not all.
The soundtrack is what builds the emotions of this film and the constant sound of ticking from a watch (Hans Zimmer actually used Nolan's watch for this sound effect) that keeps you in the scene thinking "will these men on screen survive this next scene?".
The cast of this film, like any film, makes it so enjoyable. With thrilling performances from Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, and even Harry Styles.
If you enjoy war films, then this is certainly for you because this one is sure to go down in history as a classic. Even leaving an open ending sequence involving Tom Hardy.
There isn't much dialogue in this film, and if it wasn't completely necessary, this film would have been just as great without any dialogue. The dialogue we hear is necessary to understanding the reasons that make the film so tense. For example there's a plot point that brings a feeling of suspense and heartbreak as we hear that not all of the men who are on the beach surviving, will make it out, because there is really only need for so many but not all.
The soundtrack is what builds the emotions of this film and the constant sound of ticking from a watch (Hans Zimmer actually used Nolan's watch for this sound effect) that keeps you in the scene thinking "will these men on screen survive this next scene?".
The cast of this film, like any film, makes it so enjoyable. With thrilling performances from Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, and even Harry Styles.
If you enjoy war films, then this is certainly for you because this one is sure to go down in history as a classic. Even leaving an open ending sequence involving Tom Hardy.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Dunkirk really wasn't one that I was sure I wanted to watch. After watching it... I'm sure that I didn't want to watch it. It was interesting, in that it was a story from history that I didn't know, but I really didn't enjoy the film itself.
At the beginning I found the three story lines to be confusing, and almost everyone I've spoken to has said the same thing that I had thought during the film... "Was Cillian Murphy playing two people?"
Looking online I've seen some are quibbling about the effects being too loud and that there was very little dialogue from the troops... to be honest I didn't notice the sound "issue" while I watched as it seemed about right for the situation they were in. I did pause for thought about no one talking, but that again didn't seem that out of place in the context of the scenes.
While the timeline issues with the three strands did eventually sort themselves out I had already been put off. I really didn't feel this can be dubbed as the summer blockbuster that it was being pegged as.
That being said, I do think it will do well as we don't see many high profile films like this. And you know what... I was ready to sigh and say "yet another singer who should stick to what they're good at"... but Harry Styles wasn't bad, but I wouldn't like to comment on whether that was because there were barely any lines or not.
I think this one will have to be chalked up as "not for me", as I said it wasn't one I'd really wanted to watch in the first place.
At the beginning I found the three story lines to be confusing, and almost everyone I've spoken to has said the same thing that I had thought during the film... "Was Cillian Murphy playing two people?"
Looking online I've seen some are quibbling about the effects being too loud and that there was very little dialogue from the troops... to be honest I didn't notice the sound "issue" while I watched as it seemed about right for the situation they were in. I did pause for thought about no one talking, but that again didn't seem that out of place in the context of the scenes.
While the timeline issues with the three strands did eventually sort themselves out I had already been put off. I really didn't feel this can be dubbed as the summer blockbuster that it was being pegged as.
That being said, I do think it will do well as we don't see many high profile films like this. And you know what... I was ready to sigh and say "yet another singer who should stick to what they're good at"... but Harry Styles wasn't bad, but I wouldn't like to comment on whether that was because there were barely any lines or not.
I think this one will have to be chalked up as "not for me", as I said it wasn't one I'd really wanted to watch in the first place.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Red Eye (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
For some people, being on an airplane is one of the most terrifying and traumatic experiences they will have to endure. For Lisa Reisert, (Rachel Mc Adams), her trauma is about to extend far beyond her dislike of flying.
Rachel works at a fancy Miami hotel where here main focus is taking care of all manner of high end clients such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Lisa is forced to take the Red-Eye flight from Dallas to Miami to return to work on time following the funeral of her Grandmother, and as it tends to go with travels, there are all manner of delays that keep her from departing at the scheduled time.
It is during one such delay that Rachel meets the charismatic Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy), and as fate has it, they end up sitting next to one another after spending some time in a restaurant bar waiting for their flight to board.
As their plane ascends into the dark and stormy weather, a change occurs in Jackson, and he reveals that he is on the plane to ensure that Lisa follows his instructions, as failure to do so will result in the death of her beloved father.
Jackson reveals to Lisa that he works for interests who want to send a message so as the person in charge at the hotel, and then she must reassign the visiting Secretary of Homeland Security and his family to a room other than his usual one.
Trapped at 30,000 FT, with a psychotic Killer, Lisa must face her fears and find a way to outwit the killer in order to save her father the Secretary and perhaps herself from a situation borne of insanity and desperation.
Director Wes Craven is best known as the man behind the “Scream” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” series as well as countless other horror and suspense films has crafted a mix bag with “Red-Eye”, as the first half of the film is hampered by the uninspired final segments of the film.
What starts out as an interesting premise with many opportunities for suspense and tension are lost as the film unwinds. Early to middle segments of the film do have moments of suspense and some great exchanges between the two leads which makes the saggy and uninspired finale all the more disappointing.
Mc. Adams and Murphy are very good in their parts as is Jayma Mays in a supporting role as all three are talents to keep an eye on for the future.
That being said, the early moments of the film do deliver the goods and if you can get around the by the numbers finale, then you might find yourself enjoying the film.
Rachel works at a fancy Miami hotel where here main focus is taking care of all manner of high end clients such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Lisa is forced to take the Red-Eye flight from Dallas to Miami to return to work on time following the funeral of her Grandmother, and as it tends to go with travels, there are all manner of delays that keep her from departing at the scheduled time.
It is during one such delay that Rachel meets the charismatic Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy), and as fate has it, they end up sitting next to one another after spending some time in a restaurant bar waiting for their flight to board.
As their plane ascends into the dark and stormy weather, a change occurs in Jackson, and he reveals that he is on the plane to ensure that Lisa follows his instructions, as failure to do so will result in the death of her beloved father.
Jackson reveals to Lisa that he works for interests who want to send a message so as the person in charge at the hotel, and then she must reassign the visiting Secretary of Homeland Security and his family to a room other than his usual one.
Trapped at 30,000 FT, with a psychotic Killer, Lisa must face her fears and find a way to outwit the killer in order to save her father the Secretary and perhaps herself from a situation borne of insanity and desperation.
Director Wes Craven is best known as the man behind the “Scream” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” series as well as countless other horror and suspense films has crafted a mix bag with “Red-Eye”, as the first half of the film is hampered by the uninspired final segments of the film.
What starts out as an interesting premise with many opportunities for suspense and tension are lost as the film unwinds. Early to middle segments of the film do have moments of suspense and some great exchanges between the two leads which makes the saggy and uninspired finale all the more disappointing.
Mc. Adams and Murphy are very good in their parts as is Jayma Mays in a supporting role as all three are talents to keep an eye on for the future.
That being said, the early moments of the film do deliver the goods and if you can get around the by the numbers finale, then you might find yourself enjoying the film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Inception is a stunningly good movie. Written and rewritten over the course of the last 10 years, this has been Christopher Nolan’s pet project since before he worked on either of the Batman movies. Finally getting the support to afford a big-budget movie of his own creation, he does not disappoint, as Inception is by far one of the best films of the last several years.
The plot is the strongest feature of Inception. In a way, it mirrors the labyrinthine twists of the subconscious, but Nolan is adept at keeping all his proverbial ducks in a row. Luckily, the plot isn’t exactly the same as dreaming, because that would make an insane, disjointed experience. The only negative I could find regarding the flow of the plot was during the first 15 minutes. Nolan doesn’t hold back on twisting your brain, and expects you to figure out when he’s showing reality and when he’s showing you a dream. The plot generally follows the heist genre, but because many elements take place during dream sequences, you never really know what’s going to come next until the film finally ends.
The cast does an excellent job, with much of the interaction spinning around the hub that is Leonardo DiCaprio. Nolan has said that the emotional life of this character is the “guiding thread of the story” and DiCaprio gives a great performance as the dream security expert who is haunted by his own dreams. The supporting cast, that includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy, truly has no weak points; they round out the story well, and in some cases provide some needed comic relief in heavier moments.
Inception is a surprise blockbuster. For a heist movie with tinges of sci-fi, it’s a thinker of a movie that will reward extra viewings with extra insight into the motivations of the characters. The action isn’t overly heavy, the special effects work for the story and not the other way around, and it has one of the most clever plots I’ve seen in a very long time. Do not miss this movie.
The plot is the strongest feature of Inception. In a way, it mirrors the labyrinthine twists of the subconscious, but Nolan is adept at keeping all his proverbial ducks in a row. Luckily, the plot isn’t exactly the same as dreaming, because that would make an insane, disjointed experience. The only negative I could find regarding the flow of the plot was during the first 15 minutes. Nolan doesn’t hold back on twisting your brain, and expects you to figure out when he’s showing reality and when he’s showing you a dream. The plot generally follows the heist genre, but because many elements take place during dream sequences, you never really know what’s going to come next until the film finally ends.
The cast does an excellent job, with much of the interaction spinning around the hub that is Leonardo DiCaprio. Nolan has said that the emotional life of this character is the “guiding thread of the story” and DiCaprio gives a great performance as the dream security expert who is haunted by his own dreams. The supporting cast, that includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy, truly has no weak points; they round out the story well, and in some cases provide some needed comic relief in heavier moments.
Inception is a surprise blockbuster. For a heist movie with tinges of sci-fi, it’s a thinker of a movie that will reward extra viewings with extra insight into the motivations of the characters. The action isn’t overly heavy, the special effects work for the story and not the other way around, and it has one of the most clever plots I’ve seen in a very long time. Do not miss this movie.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Days Later (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict: Modern Zombie Gem
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
A Good, Maybe Very Good, But Not Great Sequel
Did you enjoy the first A QUIET PLACE film? This horror/thriller from 2018 was unique in that it emphasized the suspense portion of the horror genre while relying, heavily, on sound (or the lack thereof).
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Oppenheimer (2023) in Movies
Jul 27, 2023
Gonna Win A Ton of Awards
Clear your shelves, Christopher Nolan and many of those involved in the making of his new movie OPPENHEIMER, you’re going to need the space for the many, many trophies you are going to receive next spring.
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
At a rundown warehouse in 1970’s Boston, Justine (Brie Larson) and Ord (Armie Hammer) are brokering a deal between a South African arms dealer (Sharlto Copley) and members of the IRA (Cillian Murphy & Michael Smiley). Tensions flare almost immediately between the two sides and an inevitable battle of wills and gunplay ensues when two members of their entourage take decisive action on a fresh grudge from the night before.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.