Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Assassination Nation (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well... this film really had its ups and downs. I can't say I was entirely a fan of this cinematic offspring of Mean Girls and The First Purge though.
Almost everything in this felt like is was just being brash and outrageous for the sake of it. As part of the opening sequence we're treated to a handy list of all the upcoming offenseive things we'll get to see in the movie. What was the point? Is it daring us to be offended in advance? Or is it just playing offensive bingo with us? "Oh yeah, homophobia! Bingo!"
The beginning of Assassination Nation introduces us to our quartet of girls in a horrible awkward teen drama kind of a way. Even taking into account the type of film this was it wasn't a believeable exchange and I was glad when everything finally moved along.
Luckily the middle of this film is quite good. Not all of the characters get as much of a story as they might deserve, in fact Lily and Bex are the only ones of the four that I could really tell you about after coming out of the screening, but it all flows well and you can see how the events are filtering through the community.
Then there's the bit after the middle (but not including the ending). As we get into the action side of Assassination Nation... honestly I think I just like typing out the title, it's a bit like when you're spelling Mississippi, lots of places you could muck it up... it's like we're on a rollercoaster, it goes downhill pretty fast.
I like mindless violence in movies, it generally has that over the top amusement factor as you see the characters devolve and have a little overacted rampage. This however is pure mob mentality at its worst with no real voice of reason apart from our main "heroine", Lily. Even far fetched things I can sort of see as "realistic", but no real resistence against what was happening? Yet another reason to think they were just going for shock factor.
I could almost have forgiven this film it's faux pas had it not been for the predictable and are-you-kidding-me ending.
What you should do
It's an amusing watch if you can dissect it and shout at the TV at te same time. I personally think it would be better for watching with a group of friends at home rather than the cinema.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like Lily's excellent skills with a shovel.
Almost everything in this felt like is was just being brash and outrageous for the sake of it. As part of the opening sequence we're treated to a handy list of all the upcoming offenseive things we'll get to see in the movie. What was the point? Is it daring us to be offended in advance? Or is it just playing offensive bingo with us? "Oh yeah, homophobia! Bingo!"
The beginning of Assassination Nation introduces us to our quartet of girls in a horrible awkward teen drama kind of a way. Even taking into account the type of film this was it wasn't a believeable exchange and I was glad when everything finally moved along.
Luckily the middle of this film is quite good. Not all of the characters get as much of a story as they might deserve, in fact Lily and Bex are the only ones of the four that I could really tell you about after coming out of the screening, but it all flows well and you can see how the events are filtering through the community.
Then there's the bit after the middle (but not including the ending). As we get into the action side of Assassination Nation... honestly I think I just like typing out the title, it's a bit like when you're spelling Mississippi, lots of places you could muck it up... it's like we're on a rollercoaster, it goes downhill pretty fast.
I like mindless violence in movies, it generally has that over the top amusement factor as you see the characters devolve and have a little overacted rampage. This however is pure mob mentality at its worst with no real voice of reason apart from our main "heroine", Lily. Even far fetched things I can sort of see as "realistic", but no real resistence against what was happening? Yet another reason to think they were just going for shock factor.
I could almost have forgiven this film it's faux pas had it not been for the predictable and are-you-kidding-me ending.
What you should do
It's an amusing watch if you can dissect it and shout at the TV at te same time. I personally think it would be better for watching with a group of friends at home rather than the cinema.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like Lily's excellent skills with a shovel.
Quik - GoPro Video Editor
Photo & Video and Travel
8.4
Rate It
App
Create awesome videos with just a few taps. Choose your favorite photos and video clips then let...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rain Man (1988) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
Hoffman and Cruise pair well together
Some films grow over time, some diminish and others are unfairly maligned. I feel that such is the case with 1988's RAINMAN, the film that won 4 Oscars including Best Director, Actor and Picture. I, too, thought that this film might be "cringe-worthy" in the harsh light of 2020, so it was with some trepidation that we fired it up as my wife's choice for "Secret Cinema" in our house.
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Nothing Lasts Forever (Die Hard, #1) in Books
Sep 30, 2020
Good to see origins to a great film (1 more)
Quick read - less than 250 pages
Only one perspective- feels like it needs more character viewpoints (1 more)
Prose can be difficult to follow
Surprising: film better than book
Nothing Lasts Forever was the framework for the great film Die Hard. Being a massive fan of the film as well as putting it under academic scrutiny, it was interesting to see the similarities and differences between book and film.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. It’s not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorp’s style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. It’s not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorp’s style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why did some muppet green light this?
Man, this is grim.
The Happytime Murders is set in LA where puppets and humans live together but without much harmony, in a somewhat clumsy parody of racism. In this setting Phil Philips (voiced by Muppets regular Bill Barretta) is a disgraced ex-cop puppet – the first of his kind -drummed out of the force for an indiscretion and now making ends meet as a PI.
But someone is progressively bumping off members of “Happy Time” – an old muppet-style show on the Puppet Television Network featuring Phil’s old flame Jenny (Elizabeth Banks). When a murder hits home close to Pete, he teams with his old police partner Connie (Melissa McCartney) to catch the murderer.
One problem with this film is that the concept – rude puppets – is not new: “Avenue Q” have done this way better on stage and “Team America: World Police” on film. So from the outset the content doesn’t really shock. But the worst problem is that for adults, the screenplay by Todd Berger is just NOT FUNNY ENOUGH. It’s a bad sign when you can count the moments you moved from a smile to a light chuckle on one hand: just three times in fact (with the silly string scene, with the wringing-out scene (“look away”) and with a parody of a famous interrogation scene).
So, based on the ‘laffs-per-minute’ count, this is 90 minutes of my life I’d like back please. Actually, if you cut out the regular swearing and came up with a suitable story about silly string, then – cartoon puppet violence and all – the kids might enjoy it much more!
The only other mildly entertaining aspect for me – which grudgingly earns it an extra half Fad – were the closing titles that showed how some of it was filmed.
McCarthy delivers much of the same shtick we’ve seen from her in all of her recent movie outings, which doesn’t really wash well with me anymore. Banks is good as the love interest Jenny, but has little to do.
It’s directed by Brian Henson, son of the late and great Jim Henson. I’m all for “experiments”, and I notice that this was released under the “Henson Alternative” brand, which is perhaps appropriate, but some experiments work and some just don’t. I personally think this is one that doesn’t extend the Henson brand and needs to be quietly forgotten with a line drawn under it.
Definitely NOT recommended. If someone asks you to go to the cinema with them to see this, tell them to get stuffed!
The Happytime Murders is set in LA where puppets and humans live together but without much harmony, in a somewhat clumsy parody of racism. In this setting Phil Philips (voiced by Muppets regular Bill Barretta) is a disgraced ex-cop puppet – the first of his kind -drummed out of the force for an indiscretion and now making ends meet as a PI.
But someone is progressively bumping off members of “Happy Time” – an old muppet-style show on the Puppet Television Network featuring Phil’s old flame Jenny (Elizabeth Banks). When a murder hits home close to Pete, he teams with his old police partner Connie (Melissa McCartney) to catch the murderer.
One problem with this film is that the concept – rude puppets – is not new: “Avenue Q” have done this way better on stage and “Team America: World Police” on film. So from the outset the content doesn’t really shock. But the worst problem is that for adults, the screenplay by Todd Berger is just NOT FUNNY ENOUGH. It’s a bad sign when you can count the moments you moved from a smile to a light chuckle on one hand: just three times in fact (with the silly string scene, with the wringing-out scene (“look away”) and with a parody of a famous interrogation scene).
So, based on the ‘laffs-per-minute’ count, this is 90 minutes of my life I’d like back please. Actually, if you cut out the regular swearing and came up with a suitable story about silly string, then – cartoon puppet violence and all – the kids might enjoy it much more!
The only other mildly entertaining aspect for me – which grudgingly earns it an extra half Fad – were the closing titles that showed how some of it was filmed.
McCarthy delivers much of the same shtick we’ve seen from her in all of her recent movie outings, which doesn’t really wash well with me anymore. Banks is good as the love interest Jenny, but has little to do.
It’s directed by Brian Henson, son of the late and great Jim Henson. I’m all for “experiments”, and I notice that this was released under the “Henson Alternative” brand, which is perhaps appropriate, but some experiments work and some just don’t. I personally think this is one that doesn’t extend the Henson brand and needs to be quietly forgotten with a line drawn under it.
Definitely NOT recommended. If someone asks you to go to the cinema with them to see this, tell them to get stuffed!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Like many others, I've been pretty much sold on The Batman since the first trailer dropped, to the point where I was worried that my own hype would leave me disappointed. Luckily that's not the case. Matt Reeves has crafted the definitive live action Batman experience.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
The character himself has gone through many iterations over the years, and most of them come with their own merits, but he works aesthetically and thematically better at the darker end of the spectrum. This Batman is certainly that. The narrative takes place wholeheartedly in the criminal underbelly of Gotham, bathing in it's corruption. It's noir-thriller construction compliments the setting perfectly, presenting a slow burning crime piece, with occasional bursts of action, that never feels boring over its near 3 hour runtime.
Pattinsons take on the character could be the very best yet. Through projects such as The Lighthouse and Tenet, he's proven that he has the chops for this kind of thing, and he nails it without a doubt. I was pleasantly surprised by how much on screen Batman we got. He's under the cowl more often than not, and it's an understandable direction to take considering how great the suit looks alongside the general aesthetic of the film. Paul Dano's Riddler is a worthy foe as well. This villain is portrayed as unhinged and dangerous from the get go, a person who is angry and upset with the world, and who has the capacity to bring Gotham to its knees. His master plan is wonderful to watch unfold. Dano is golden in anything he appears in, and my only real complaint about The Batman is that we didn't get more of him.
Colin Farrell, Zoe Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, and John Turturro are all fantastic supports. It's a well rounded cast, playing well written characters.
The direction and cinematography on display is some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. Reeves has a great eye, from Cloverfield to his Planet of the Apes entries, he has a certain brand of cinema magic that suits Gotham down to the ground. Throw Greig Fraser into the mix, fresh from his outstanding work with Dune, and you have a pretty solid pairing that results in a breathtaking, visual feast, all backed up by a phenomenal music score, from the ever reliable Michael Giacchino.
I can't heap enough praise onto The Batman, a patient, unforgiving, enthralling, and bleak comic adaption that sits at the top of the pile that is deserving of its glowing reviews.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
If there was ever the perfect example of an incredible cast stuck inside a lackluster finished product, then House of Gucci is surely it.
The pacing is the main culprit. The first 45 minutes or so feel relatively breezy. The narrative unfolding is a fun and interesting one. The characters are all introduced well enough. But something happens around the midpoint that makes HoG feel like a slog, and it never quite recovers. For a story that has a very specific final destination, it manages to feel direction-less for quite a bit of the runtime. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I'd run a marathon through thick mud.
The saving grace then, is the aforementioned cast. Lady Gaga turns in a magnificent performance, further cementing that she belongs in cinema. I've said before, and I'll say it again, I fucking love Adam Driver in pretty much everything he touches, and here is no different. The two leads together go a long way to ensure that HoG remains watchable. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons could play these kind of roles in their sleep by now but their presence here is a welcome one. There's a specific scene somewhere within the first hour (I think) where it's just the two of them talking to eachother about their respective offspring, and it's like screen crack for me. Two masters at work. Then there's Jared Leto, who's portrayal of Paolo Gucci could definitely be deemed as excessive, full on Mario-esque accent and all, but he actually provides a huge dash of charisma in the duller moments so I can't complain too much.
All of the characters in this story are bad people to varying levels of degree, but they also command a certain level of sympathy, and to HoG's credit, this aspect is executed well, and 100% sold by it's great talent.
House of Gucci is nice to look at, boasts a top drawer ensemble cast, and has some genuine moments of excellence, but it's also overblown and overstuffed with hot air. I saw another review on here saying that it felt like it was made with the sole and transparent purpose of winning Oscars, and I can completely agree with that statement. Ridley Scott has made some of my absolute favourite films over the years, and while it does have its merits and is fun in parts, this one sadly feels a little self indulgent to really hit the mark.
The pacing is the main culprit. The first 45 minutes or so feel relatively breezy. The narrative unfolding is a fun and interesting one. The characters are all introduced well enough. But something happens around the midpoint that makes HoG feel like a slog, and it never quite recovers. For a story that has a very specific final destination, it manages to feel direction-less for quite a bit of the runtime. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I'd run a marathon through thick mud.
The saving grace then, is the aforementioned cast. Lady Gaga turns in a magnificent performance, further cementing that she belongs in cinema. I've said before, and I'll say it again, I fucking love Adam Driver in pretty much everything he touches, and here is no different. The two leads together go a long way to ensure that HoG remains watchable. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons could play these kind of roles in their sleep by now but their presence here is a welcome one. There's a specific scene somewhere within the first hour (I think) where it's just the two of them talking to eachother about their respective offspring, and it's like screen crack for me. Two masters at work. Then there's Jared Leto, who's portrayal of Paolo Gucci could definitely be deemed as excessive, full on Mario-esque accent and all, but he actually provides a huge dash of charisma in the duller moments so I can't complain too much.
All of the characters in this story are bad people to varying levels of degree, but they also command a certain level of sympathy, and to HoG's credit, this aspect is executed well, and 100% sold by it's great talent.
House of Gucci is nice to look at, boasts a top drawer ensemble cast, and has some genuine moments of excellence, but it's also overblown and overstuffed with hot air. I saw another review on here saying that it felt like it was made with the sole and transparent purpose of winning Oscars, and I can completely agree with that statement. Ridley Scott has made some of my absolute favourite films over the years, and while it does have its merits and is fun in parts, this one sadly feels a little self indulgent to really hit the mark.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Haunting in Venice (2023) in Movies
Sep 30, 2023
Well Crafted
Famed Agatha Christie Belgian Sleuth Hercule Poirot is a familiar figure on the screen - both large and small. He has been played numerous times by numerous performers, each one riffing on the famed mustached Detective and his “little grey cells” and and any performer who takes on this character must bear the weight of those who played the role before him.
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
I first got an extended look at “Bullet Train” during Cinemacon when a reel of the film was shown during the Sony showcase to an enthusiastic crowd. The footage mixed action and humor with quirky and dysfunctional characters and became a must-see film for me based on the teased footage.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Lee (2222 KP) Sep 25, 2019