Search
Grateful American: A Journey from Self to Service
Book
The moving, entertaining, never-before-told story of how one man found his calling. "The book is...
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Dec 10, 2019
Verdict: Simple & Enjoyable
Story: The Mule starts as Earl Stone (Eastwood) a horticulturist that has spend too much of his life on the road away from his family, missing the major events in his family’s life. After he doesn’t cope with the changes in the market, he is left with nothing and looking like failing his granddaughter Ginny (Farmiga), only for her fiancée Mike (Freeman) offer him a chance to just drive.
With Earl taking the job, it turns out he has been transporting drugs, with Agent Colin Bates (Cooper) and Agent Trevino (Pena) trying to track down anyone smuggling drugs across the border. How long can Earl keep this up before he gets caught, even though he is spending the money on helping the community.
Thoughts on The Mule
Characters – Earl is a horticulturist, he has spent his whole life in this business, which has seen him sacrifice major family events, making him distant to most of his family. He loses his job and is given a chance to become a driver for a cartel, which he soon becomes the most successful in the industry he even gives the money back to the community he has seen struggle for years. Mary is the ex-wife that has finally become tired of the let downs that Earl has left the family with. Ginny is the granddaughter that has been promised money and doesn’t care as long as her grandfather is willing to be there for her on the big days. Agent Bates is fresh to the force he is tasked to try and stop the smuggling and spends most of the time trying to learn about the new mysterious mule for the cartel.
Performances – Clint Eastwood is a joy to watch in this film, he comes off like an everyday older person that just wants to be willing to help people around his life, even though he is filled with regret about his family life. Bradley Cooper doesn’t really get too much time to shine or do anything in his role, while the rest of the cast don’t seem to get that much time to show off their characters.
Story – The story here that follows a retirement aged, he has worked his whole life and ends up becoming a drug mule for a cartel, which sees him becoming one of the most wanted men in America. This is based on a real man that took this role because he enjoyed driving, he isn’t like anybody else they have worked for, but his style makes him harder to track down. The story does use the themes of regretting losing time in life which is clear in the behaviour from Earl along the way. We do have a few plot holes with how the cartel carry out their jobs, because this just seems to end, without any consequences, why would they give up the success they were having too.
Crime – The crime side of the film does feel like just somebody casually taking part in the drug mule business, he is only ever put to a test once he needs to decide his own future.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show the locations that Earl stops along the way, which does make him harder to track.
Scene of the Movie – The last run.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Nothing seems to happen to the cartel.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime story that shows just how one person can casually commit crimes without anybody noticing them.
Overall: Easy Watch.
Story: The Mule starts as Earl Stone (Eastwood) a horticulturist that has spend too much of his life on the road away from his family, missing the major events in his family’s life. After he doesn’t cope with the changes in the market, he is left with nothing and looking like failing his granddaughter Ginny (Farmiga), only for her fiancée Mike (Freeman) offer him a chance to just drive.
With Earl taking the job, it turns out he has been transporting drugs, with Agent Colin Bates (Cooper) and Agent Trevino (Pena) trying to track down anyone smuggling drugs across the border. How long can Earl keep this up before he gets caught, even though he is spending the money on helping the community.
Thoughts on The Mule
Characters – Earl is a horticulturist, he has spent his whole life in this business, which has seen him sacrifice major family events, making him distant to most of his family. He loses his job and is given a chance to become a driver for a cartel, which he soon becomes the most successful in the industry he even gives the money back to the community he has seen struggle for years. Mary is the ex-wife that has finally become tired of the let downs that Earl has left the family with. Ginny is the granddaughter that has been promised money and doesn’t care as long as her grandfather is willing to be there for her on the big days. Agent Bates is fresh to the force he is tasked to try and stop the smuggling and spends most of the time trying to learn about the new mysterious mule for the cartel.
Performances – Clint Eastwood is a joy to watch in this film, he comes off like an everyday older person that just wants to be willing to help people around his life, even though he is filled with regret about his family life. Bradley Cooper doesn’t really get too much time to shine or do anything in his role, while the rest of the cast don’t seem to get that much time to show off their characters.
Story – The story here that follows a retirement aged, he has worked his whole life and ends up becoming a drug mule for a cartel, which sees him becoming one of the most wanted men in America. This is based on a real man that took this role because he enjoyed driving, he isn’t like anybody else they have worked for, but his style makes him harder to track down. The story does use the themes of regretting losing time in life which is clear in the behaviour from Earl along the way. We do have a few plot holes with how the cartel carry out their jobs, because this just seems to end, without any consequences, why would they give up the success they were having too.
Crime – The crime side of the film does feel like just somebody casually taking part in the drug mule business, he is only ever put to a test once he needs to decide his own future.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show the locations that Earl stops along the way, which does make him harder to track.
Scene of the Movie – The last run.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Nothing seems to happen to the cartel.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime story that shows just how one person can casually commit crimes without anybody noticing them.
Overall: Easy Watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Oct 19, 2018 (Updated Oct 19, 2018)
Bradley Cooper's direction (2 more)
Both lead performances
Great original songs
Better Than Expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have dragged my other half to see plenty of stuff recently that she has sat through because I wanted to see it, so I thought it was about time that I let her drag me to something that she fancied seeing. I'm pretty glad that she did.
I expected A Star Is Born to be full of cheesy dialogue and crappy pop songs and I didn't know what to expect from Bradley Cooper's first time in the director's chair. Thankfully, my uncertainty and doubt was proven wrong. This is an absolutely fantastic directorial debut from Cooper. There were several parts in the movie where it felt similar to a Clint Eastwood directed movie, the influence that Clint obviously had on Cooper when they worked together for American Sniper has clearly paid off here. The cinematography is brilliant throughout the film and he gets a lot out of his actors too.
Considering Cooper is an actor, he plays an exceptionally convincing rock star as Jackson Maine. His voice is phenomenal and if all of the guitar playing was done by him, then that was impressive also. Likewise, considering Lady Gaga's background is as a singer and not an actress, she did a pretty great job in this role as Ally - even if she is playing a character very similar to herself. Sam Elliot is also fantastic, (as he always is,) as Jack's older brother and I reckon could be in for an Oscar shout for best supporting role.
In order to talk about the main negative I had with the film, I am going to have to spoil the way that it ends. So SPOILERS from this point on, you have been warned.
I know that Jackson didn't commit suicide just because of what Ally's sleazy agent said to him at the end of the movie, but I only know that because I had to fill in the blanks myself. The way that the movie presents it, is as if the agent tells Jack that he's an embarrassment to Ally and that's what makes him want to hang himself, which to me isn't justification enough to have a character take their own life, especially a character like Jackson Maine. The argument could be made that it wasn't what the agent said that led to Jack's suicide, but because he said out loud the way that Jack sees himself. As a burden and embarrassment to Ally. Although, if this was the case I feel like the movie could have driven it home a bit more. Like I said, I know that there was more to the character's decision to end his life than that, but the movie doesn't show it, instead making it look as if he decided to hang himself because of a smarmy wee prick's obnoxious comments.
Overall, this film was far better than it had any right to be. Although, the movie is funny in parts, overall it takes itself more seriously than I expected it too and I think that it is better for it. It may not win best picture, but I reckon it deserves a nomination, as does Bradley Cooper for best director.
I expected A Star Is Born to be full of cheesy dialogue and crappy pop songs and I didn't know what to expect from Bradley Cooper's first time in the director's chair. Thankfully, my uncertainty and doubt was proven wrong. This is an absolutely fantastic directorial debut from Cooper. There were several parts in the movie where it felt similar to a Clint Eastwood directed movie, the influence that Clint obviously had on Cooper when they worked together for American Sniper has clearly paid off here. The cinematography is brilliant throughout the film and he gets a lot out of his actors too.
Considering Cooper is an actor, he plays an exceptionally convincing rock star as Jackson Maine. His voice is phenomenal and if all of the guitar playing was done by him, then that was impressive also. Likewise, considering Lady Gaga's background is as a singer and not an actress, she did a pretty great job in this role as Ally - even if she is playing a character very similar to herself. Sam Elliot is also fantastic, (as he always is,) as Jack's older brother and I reckon could be in for an Oscar shout for best supporting role.
In order to talk about the main negative I had with the film, I am going to have to spoil the way that it ends. So SPOILERS from this point on, you have been warned.
I know that Jackson didn't commit suicide just because of what Ally's sleazy agent said to him at the end of the movie, but I only know that because I had to fill in the blanks myself. The way that the movie presents it, is as if the agent tells Jack that he's an embarrassment to Ally and that's what makes him want to hang himself, which to me isn't justification enough to have a character take their own life, especially a character like Jackson Maine. The argument could be made that it wasn't what the agent said that led to Jack's suicide, but because he said out loud the way that Jack sees himself. As a burden and embarrassment to Ally. Although, if this was the case I feel like the movie could have driven it home a bit more. Like I said, I know that there was more to the character's decision to end his life than that, but the movie doesn't show it, instead making it look as if he decided to hang himself because of a smarmy wee prick's obnoxious comments.
Overall, this film was far better than it had any right to be. Although, the movie is funny in parts, overall it takes itself more seriously than I expected it too and I think that it is better for it. It may not win best picture, but I reckon it deserves a nomination, as does Bradley Cooper for best director.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Black Magic Sanction (The Hollows, #8) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book was like one long game of fight-or-flight, mixed in with multiple escape plans when Rachel could not avoid getting caught. Being Rachel Morgan must be quite exhausting. Being eight books in now, I have been able to come up with many reasons why I enjoy reading this series so much. For starters, I love how Kim Harrison plays off of Clint Eastwood films for her book titles. I also love how each race of supernatural beings are so creatively developed to be both unique and intriguing, right down to the intimate biological makeup. I especially love how Rachel operates "by the seat of her pants" so to speak. Her instincts are nearly always spot on, and she's got reflexes that put a cat's to shame. Even though her deceased father inadvertedly put her in this position of power, able to change the course of history on her version of Earth, she still strives to be "normal" and refuses to be anyone's puppet.
This book was all about crossing moral lines for the right reasons and how far Rachel is willing to cross them to protect those she loves and be free herself. The plot was exciting and fast-paced almost from cover to cover, except for a sad note that had me shedding a few tears - even though the series has given the reader fair warning of what would eventually happen - as well as a hot-and-heavy interlude - because it wouldn't be a Rachel Morgan book without it. I love the mental, unvoiced quips that Rachel dreams up to convey her thoughts, which are so much more entertaining than just base cussing. Case in point: "Are frogs coming from the sun in shapeships, too?" How can a person not laugh at that? Jenks' frequent quips about Tinkerbell can be quite hilarious, too. The ending to the book holds quite a bit of promise for the next one, Pale Demon, especially in regards to Rachel's relationship with the elf, Trent. Speaking of relationships, I am rather intrigued by Al's obsession with Rachel, especially after he changed his appearance with his gargoyle Treble. While I admit my interest may be heavy on the icky, one must admit the potential for certain interludes is strong and highly possible, given what Rachel is becoming. Plus, Al makes no secret of his interest in Rachel, trying three times to convince her to move in the ever-after, though I have my suspicions that his interest is more than just physical. The close look that the reader got of the Coven of Moral and Ethical Standards shows some interesting possibilities given that Pierce is a past member of it. Oh the havoc that Rachel can cause will keep me interested in this series for as long as Kim Harrison keeps writing it!
This book was all about crossing moral lines for the right reasons and how far Rachel is willing to cross them to protect those she loves and be free herself. The plot was exciting and fast-paced almost from cover to cover, except for a sad note that had me shedding a few tears - even though the series has given the reader fair warning of what would eventually happen - as well as a hot-and-heavy interlude - because it wouldn't be a Rachel Morgan book without it. I love the mental, unvoiced quips that Rachel dreams up to convey her thoughts, which are so much more entertaining than just base cussing. Case in point: "Are frogs coming from the sun in shapeships, too?" How can a person not laugh at that? Jenks' frequent quips about Tinkerbell can be quite hilarious, too. The ending to the book holds quite a bit of promise for the next one, Pale Demon, especially in regards to Rachel's relationship with the elf, Trent. Speaking of relationships, I am rather intrigued by Al's obsession with Rachel, especially after he changed his appearance with his gargoyle Treble. While I admit my interest may be heavy on the icky, one must admit the potential for certain interludes is strong and highly possible, given what Rachel is becoming. Plus, Al makes no secret of his interest in Rachel, trying three times to convince her to move in the ever-after, though I have my suspicions that his interest is more than just physical. The close look that the reader got of the Coven of Moral and Ethical Standards shows some interesting possibilities given that Pierce is a past member of it. Oh the havoc that Rachel can cause will keep me interested in this series for as long as Kim Harrison keeps writing it!
JT (287 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 6, 2021
The opening of The Little Things promises a lot but ultimately the tension that is driven during the first ten minutes is nowhere to be seen for the rest of the run time.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank 2: High Voltage (2009) in Movies
Apr 12, 2020
A Very Poor Man's Hardcore Henry
Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) is back (because apparently falling out of a helicopter thousands of feet in the air can’t kill him) facing off against a gang of thugs that want to harvest his “special” heart for their leader. Artificial heart attached, Chev has to keep recharging himself or slow down and, ultimately, die. Can’t make this shit up…
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 16 Blocks (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
A burnt out cop with a bad limp and a taste for the bottle has just finished his shift and is looking forward to heading home for some rest. Sadly for Detective Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis), his day is about to get much longer than he expected.
On his way out of the precinct, his Lieutenant tasks him to escort a prisoner named Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), 16 blocks in 90 minutes so he can testify before a jury. Since the jury will disband in 90 minutes, it is vital that Eddie appear before them or else months of work in a prime case will be lost.
Jack is less than thrilled to be stuck with Eddie as his high voice and rapid fire style of speech really annoy Jack, who decides to take a detour from the non stop rants of Eddie to purchase a bottle of alcohol so he can drown his sorrows.
No sooner does Jack complete his purchase at a favorite store than an attempt is made on Eddie by armed men forcing Jack and Eddie to flee on foot and take refuge in a local bar where they are soon met by detective Frank Nugent (David Morse), who said he was in the area and responded to Jack’s call for assistance.
Frank informs his former partner Jack that he is escorting a snitch who is about to give evidence that will implicate many cops who were simply doing business. Frank suggests that Jack head home and rest while he cleans up the problem by taking charge of Eddie.
When Jack learns that Frank and his associates intend to kill Eddie to keep him from testifying, Jack decides to defend Eddie and the two of them begin a deadly race against the clock as they attempt to not only get Eddie to the courthouse in time, but to simply stay alive against a cadre of corrupt cops.
Since he went up against fellow cops, Jack is reported as a rogue who turned on fellow officers, which leaves him with nowhere to turn and without backup as he attempt to stay one step ahead of the relentless Frank and his associates as they venture from one city block to another in order to stay alive. Along the way, the two men bond, and Jack begins to learn that what Eddie knows will get them all killed and that in a city the size of New York, there are precious few places to hide, when people are determined to find you.
The solid pacing of the film and the quality work by Morse, Willis, and Mos Def keeps 16 Blocks an entertaining and engaging film. The chemistry amongst the leads draws you in more than most typical action dramas do, as you find yourself caring about the two individuals and want them to succeed.
Director Richard Donner has dialed down his usual explosions but has not sacrificed the action as it is always appropriate to the story and never seems tacked on. The film does loose some steam towards the end but does ultimately arrive at a conclusion that makes the trip worthwhile.
The film does borrow in parts from the classic Clint Eastwood film “The Gauntlet”. Even down to the heroes taking refuge in a city bus and attempted to evade the police in the bus amidst an armada of armed officers who are looking to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you are a fan of Willis or Mos Def and like action dramas, then 16 Blocks is a trip well worth taking.
On his way out of the precinct, his Lieutenant tasks him to escort a prisoner named Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), 16 blocks in 90 minutes so he can testify before a jury. Since the jury will disband in 90 minutes, it is vital that Eddie appear before them or else months of work in a prime case will be lost.
Jack is less than thrilled to be stuck with Eddie as his high voice and rapid fire style of speech really annoy Jack, who decides to take a detour from the non stop rants of Eddie to purchase a bottle of alcohol so he can drown his sorrows.
No sooner does Jack complete his purchase at a favorite store than an attempt is made on Eddie by armed men forcing Jack and Eddie to flee on foot and take refuge in a local bar where they are soon met by detective Frank Nugent (David Morse), who said he was in the area and responded to Jack’s call for assistance.
Frank informs his former partner Jack that he is escorting a snitch who is about to give evidence that will implicate many cops who were simply doing business. Frank suggests that Jack head home and rest while he cleans up the problem by taking charge of Eddie.
When Jack learns that Frank and his associates intend to kill Eddie to keep him from testifying, Jack decides to defend Eddie and the two of them begin a deadly race against the clock as they attempt to not only get Eddie to the courthouse in time, but to simply stay alive against a cadre of corrupt cops.
Since he went up against fellow cops, Jack is reported as a rogue who turned on fellow officers, which leaves him with nowhere to turn and without backup as he attempt to stay one step ahead of the relentless Frank and his associates as they venture from one city block to another in order to stay alive. Along the way, the two men bond, and Jack begins to learn that what Eddie knows will get them all killed and that in a city the size of New York, there are precious few places to hide, when people are determined to find you.
The solid pacing of the film and the quality work by Morse, Willis, and Mos Def keeps 16 Blocks an entertaining and engaging film. The chemistry amongst the leads draws you in more than most typical action dramas do, as you find yourself caring about the two individuals and want them to succeed.
Director Richard Donner has dialed down his usual explosions but has not sacrificed the action as it is always appropriate to the story and never seems tacked on. The film does loose some steam towards the end but does ultimately arrive at a conclusion that makes the trip worthwhile.
The film does borrow in parts from the classic Clint Eastwood film “The Gauntlet”. Even down to the heroes taking refuge in a city bus and attempted to evade the police in the bus amidst an armada of armed officers who are looking to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you are a fan of Willis or Mos Def and like action dramas, then 16 Blocks is a trip well worth taking.