Search
JT (287 KP) rated Dead Man Down (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
If you’re looking for a film that is as dark and disturbing as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, you might be a little disappointed here.
Only a little however, director Niels Arden Oplev’s first English language feature produces effective results in what is a very good revenge thriller. Colin Farrell plays gangland enforcer Victor who during a shoot out saves the life of his boss Alphonse (Howard) who is being tormented by an unknown hell bent on making his life uncomfortable.
Victor has his own agenda, getting as close to Alphonse as possible before exacting revenge for the murder of his wife and daughter years earlier. On the surface it looks like any bog standard Hollywood revenge thriller but dig a little deeper and therein lies an intricate story that weaves its way through to an explosive finale.
Oplev brings back Dragon Tattoo star Noomi Rapace and gives her a darker character, (one that she’ll be able to relate with) who has a past that has scared her, both inside and out, she’s after some revenge of her own. Comparisons will be drawn to her most famous female lead, Lisbeth Salander.
Rapace plays Beatrice, a lonely individual who lives with her slightly deaf mother Valentine (Isabelle Huppert) who has a penchant for cooking and Tupperware and it would be argued her talents are wasted in this. Beatrice blackmails Victor when she catches him knocking off a gang member in his apartment, and tells him that she’ll go to he police unless he helps her kill someone from her past.
Despite coming across as a revenge-actioner in the trailers the film itself has a lot more going for it than that, there is so much more to the story than just cracking heads and explosions. Beatrice’s pain at being scarred by a drunk diver who all but got away leaves her encased in worry and self pity, while Valentine does her best to push her back out into the world.
The relationship between Victor and Beatrice is cagey at first, but this isn’t an initial romance that is going to blossom with them walking off into the sunset together, not at the beginning anyway. It is hard to tell who really wants what and its more about the coming together of two lost souls whose first thought in life is revenge, leaving everything else to come second.
The on screen chemistry between the two lead protagonists is believable, Farrell is steely eyed and strong and Rapace conveys herself with devilish intrigue while at the same time giving off a sense of vulnerability. Terrance Howard is slick and does a decent job, although I could think of a number of other actors who probably could have pulled off the character with a great deal more menace.
The action is pretty good, the highlight being the pulsating last 15 minutes which to be honest was well worth the admission price alone. There was what I would call a ‘copout’ moment at the end, and after everything that Farrell had gone through I would have thought more attention would have been centered on that, instead I left feeling slightly short changed.
It’s a solid film from Niels Arden Oplev with some great acting and a finale that will leave you gasping for an encore.
Only a little however, director Niels Arden Oplev’s first English language feature produces effective results in what is a very good revenge thriller. Colin Farrell plays gangland enforcer Victor who during a shoot out saves the life of his boss Alphonse (Howard) who is being tormented by an unknown hell bent on making his life uncomfortable.
Victor has his own agenda, getting as close to Alphonse as possible before exacting revenge for the murder of his wife and daughter years earlier. On the surface it looks like any bog standard Hollywood revenge thriller but dig a little deeper and therein lies an intricate story that weaves its way through to an explosive finale.
Oplev brings back Dragon Tattoo star Noomi Rapace and gives her a darker character, (one that she’ll be able to relate with) who has a past that has scared her, both inside and out, she’s after some revenge of her own. Comparisons will be drawn to her most famous female lead, Lisbeth Salander.
Rapace plays Beatrice, a lonely individual who lives with her slightly deaf mother Valentine (Isabelle Huppert) who has a penchant for cooking and Tupperware and it would be argued her talents are wasted in this. Beatrice blackmails Victor when she catches him knocking off a gang member in his apartment, and tells him that she’ll go to he police unless he helps her kill someone from her past.
Despite coming across as a revenge-actioner in the trailers the film itself has a lot more going for it than that, there is so much more to the story than just cracking heads and explosions. Beatrice’s pain at being scarred by a drunk diver who all but got away leaves her encased in worry and self pity, while Valentine does her best to push her back out into the world.
The relationship between Victor and Beatrice is cagey at first, but this isn’t an initial romance that is going to blossom with them walking off into the sunset together, not at the beginning anyway. It is hard to tell who really wants what and its more about the coming together of two lost souls whose first thought in life is revenge, leaving everything else to come second.
The on screen chemistry between the two lead protagonists is believable, Farrell is steely eyed and strong and Rapace conveys herself with devilish intrigue while at the same time giving off a sense of vulnerability. Terrance Howard is slick and does a decent job, although I could think of a number of other actors who probably could have pulled off the character with a great deal more menace.
The action is pretty good, the highlight being the pulsating last 15 minutes which to be honest was well worth the admission price alone. There was what I would call a ‘copout’ moment at the end, and after everything that Farrell had gone through I would have thought more attention would have been centered on that, instead I left feeling slightly short changed.
It’s a solid film from Niels Arden Oplev with some great acting and a finale that will leave you gasping for an encore.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Winter's Tale (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Winter’s Tale”, starring Colin Farrell (Peter Lake), Jessica Brown Findlay (Beverly Penn), Russell Crowe (Pearly Soames), William Hurt (Isaac Penn), Jennifer Connelly (Virginia Gamely) and Will Smith (The Judge) is a fantastic love story, although the beginning was a little slow. It did help define the three different timelines involved in the plot
After a brief scene set in 1895, where we see a set of parents put their baby in a model ship, lower him down into the Hudson River and set him afloat, the timeline jumps to 1916. In this timeline we meet Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the first time, and are drawn into their story of good versus evil. As Pearly hunts for Peter, in order to destroy him, Peter is assisted by a beautiful white horse named Athansor. The horse is absolutely stunning and along with the incredible use of light throughout the movie, it is possibly one of the most memorable things about the film. The stallion is the guardian angel of the adult Peter – and he flies! The CGI was seamless and beautiful.
As Peter tries again and again to escape Pearly, he ends up meeting Beverly who is ill with consumption. Of course, it’s a love story and they fall in love. Farrell and Penn’s portrayal of their characters’ romance was so poignant, you will need to have tissues on hand. Throughout the movie a voiceover says “inside each of us is a miracle, a miracle intended for one person alone.” The plot twists connected to that statement were just enough to keep me guessing – often incorrectly.
It was a total and complete shock to see Will Smith play an antagonist so well. Russell Crowe was great as Pearly, very believable as a demon obsessed with getting his way and wreaking vengeance on someone who he saw as having “done him wrong.”
When the storyline jumped to present day New York, 2014, the imagery of the lights and stars helped with the transition but the magic of the film seemed to disappear afterwards. While the last third of the movie was not hard to follow, it was still a bit hard to understand its point right away. I definitely felt like the movie lost some momentum after the jump to present day. In the end, it just felt like there was something missing – possibly left in the editing room. Maybe we’ll find it on the DVD extras.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
After a brief scene set in 1895, where we see a set of parents put their baby in a model ship, lower him down into the Hudson River and set him afloat, the timeline jumps to 1916. In this timeline we meet Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the first time, and are drawn into their story of good versus evil. As Pearly hunts for Peter, in order to destroy him, Peter is assisted by a beautiful white horse named Athansor. The horse is absolutely stunning and along with the incredible use of light throughout the movie, it is possibly one of the most memorable things about the film. The stallion is the guardian angel of the adult Peter – and he flies! The CGI was seamless and beautiful.
As Peter tries again and again to escape Pearly, he ends up meeting Beverly who is ill with consumption. Of course, it’s a love story and they fall in love. Farrell and Penn’s portrayal of their characters’ romance was so poignant, you will need to have tissues on hand. Throughout the movie a voiceover says “inside each of us is a miracle, a miracle intended for one person alone.” The plot twists connected to that statement were just enough to keep me guessing – often incorrectly.
It was a total and complete shock to see Will Smith play an antagonist so well. Russell Crowe was great as Pearly, very believable as a demon obsessed with getting his way and wreaking vengeance on someone who he saw as having “done him wrong.”
When the storyline jumped to present day New York, 2014, the imagery of the lights and stars helped with the transition but the magic of the film seemed to disappear afterwards. While the last third of the movie was not hard to follow, it was still a bit hard to understand its point right away. I definitely felt like the movie lost some momentum after the jump to present day. In the end, it just felt like there was something missing – possibly left in the editing room. Maybe we’ll find it on the DVD extras.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Daredevil (2003) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐'𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘺?"
"𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴..."
*Director's cut*
Old proverb states: can a movie *truly* be bad with a Colin Farrell performance this fuckin' gonzo? Just as hokey as you remember, that playground fight is one of the worst things to make it through to pass in any superhero movie - and it's hilarious. Really funny when it tries to be, too though - for that matter. Overstuffed and contrived for sure but not too much more or less cartoonish than most of the stuff in the Raimi 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳-𝘔𝘢𝘯 movies, and this at least endearing market-tested clumsiness is - at the very least - twenty times more palatable than the intolerable formula market-testing in most of the Phase One/Three MCU flicks. This at least tries to have some fun, good humor, comic book replication, varied story beats, and a palpable edge beyond just its superficial emo-ness. I just can't help but smirk at the moon physics fight sequences or corny needledrops ("All this time I can't believe I couldn't see" with a lingering cut to Matt's eyes, come on man lmao). There's also a pretty rock solid backdrop in here about how most of the characters - good or bad - are motivated by greed or self-interest, so ultimately what we have to judge in the end is what's left when that wealth, pride, and/or power is unceremoniously stripped away from them. That final fight/scene with Kingpin is epic. Comes out much more sorta dorkily awkward as opposed to corporately sinister than it did in its day, because of what this has been replaced with and how immeasurably worse it is.
"𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴..."
*Director's cut*
Old proverb states: can a movie *truly* be bad with a Colin Farrell performance this fuckin' gonzo? Just as hokey as you remember, that playground fight is one of the worst things to make it through to pass in any superhero movie - and it's hilarious. Really funny when it tries to be, too though - for that matter. Overstuffed and contrived for sure but not too much more or less cartoonish than most of the stuff in the Raimi 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳-𝘔𝘢𝘯 movies, and this at least endearing market-tested clumsiness is - at the very least - twenty times more palatable than the intolerable formula market-testing in most of the Phase One/Three MCU flicks. This at least tries to have some fun, good humor, comic book replication, varied story beats, and a palpable edge beyond just its superficial emo-ness. I just can't help but smirk at the moon physics fight sequences or corny needledrops ("All this time I can't believe I couldn't see" with a lingering cut to Matt's eyes, come on man lmao). There's also a pretty rock solid backdrop in here about how most of the characters - good or bad - are motivated by greed or self-interest, so ultimately what we have to judge in the end is what's left when that wealth, pride, and/or power is unceremoniously stripped away from them. That final fight/scene with Kingpin is epic. Comes out much more sorta dorkily awkward as opposed to corporately sinister than it did in its day, because of what this has been replaced with and how immeasurably worse it is.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
I checked up on the BBFC about language allowed in the different rated films. A 15 may have frequent strong language, "the strongest terms may be acceptable if justified by the context", it also says that "aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
A funny angle
Gentleman is Guy Richie's attempt to bring the british gangster movies from the past back into the modern time and while it may just be an updated version of Snatch its a bloody enjoyable update. It seems like years ago now since I grew out of the 'British Gangster' film phase of my life and while I actaully find Snatch to be over rated myself instead much preferring Guy Richie's other work I can still understand why it has such a big following. Gentleman follows the same formula either deliberately or coincidentally and while this does feel repetative/outdated I couldnt help but be pulled in and deliciously entertained by it. Playing out a bit like reading a comic book Gentleman is satisfyingly violent, full of cusing/crudness and full of mostly satisfying twists and turns. At first I hated it but after the first 20 minutes I just let go and finally started getting back in to this sort of style. Full to the brim with exposition dialog but its handled in a refreshing new way which made hearing it less eye rolling and instead kept it constantly entertaining. Essentially one big power struggle between an assortment of characters non of which are actually very nice people but the ones Hugh Grant and Charlie hunnam play are extremely likeable. Watching these two interact on screen is the absolute bread and butter and they both play interesting characters both with very unique individual traits and characteristics. Colin Farrell is also superb and memorable too and the film has a wicked sense of humor that kept me laughing the whole way through. If you are easily offended its safe to say this is not the film for you as its not only full of extreame cursing but constant racism and violence too. By no means a perfect film or a gangster masterpiece Gentleman is still and absolute blast to watch and has enough twists/turns, quirky characters, witty dialog, fresh ideas, tension, violence/mucking about to entertain and offend pretty much anyone. Highly enjoyable.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It’s been a while since Guy Ritchie dealt with some proper geezers doing crime and talking bollocks. Maybe there were elements of it in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. but really it’s Rock ‘n Rolla from 2008 we are talking about. Personally I hadn’t missed it. I pretty much think he took it as far as it needed to be taken, and I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes stuff, anyway.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Verdict: Charming
Story: Dumbo starts when Holt Farrier (Farrell) returns from war, to re-join the circus run by Max Medici (DeVito) where his kids Milly (Parker) and Joe (Hobbins) have been living and working for years, Holt has come back injured, with the only job offered to him, being cleaning up after the elephants, one of which is pregnant giving birth to an elephant with giant ears, which only causes chaos on his debut in the circus.
After Dumbo’s mother is taken away, he is left alone, while the children learn about his flying skills, which turns Max’s circus into the talk of the country, attracting V. A. Vandevere (Keaton) who wants to offer Max the world for Dumbo.
Thoughts on Dumbo
Characters – Holt Farrier is a war veteran widow that has returned to his children in a circus. He has been suffering with his time away, this has seen him not show as much affection as his wife would have, he takes the only job he can get which sees him training and cleaning up the elephants, his time back in the circus does bring him back to his kids, where he learns how important life still can be. V. A. Vandevere is the operator of Dreamland, he sales the idea of a better life for the whole troop, even if he has his own ideas to just make himself rich. Max Medici runs the small circus that discovers Dumbo’s talent, he has always been in the game for the money and can’t resist the idea of money when Vandevere arrives but must learn there is more to his life than money. Colette Marchant is the star performer in Vandevere show, she has been for years though she is just the hottest thing he has going for a while, she doe solve to perform. Dumbo is the baby elephant with giant eyes, who loses his mother, but has the incredible ability to fly, drawing crowds from miles.
Performances – Colin Farrell gives us a wonderful performance as the caring veteran who has been struggling with his own problems once returning from war. Michael Keaton enjoy the villainous role, while Danny DeVito is shows the desperation while still bringing the heart needing for the role, Eva Green shines to as the beautiful performer too.
Story – The story here shows how a small circus that finds themselves with a star attraction in Dumbo, which sees them become a success that the whole country wants to see. The story might focus on Dumbo being forced into performing after having his mother taken away, while deeper down we get to see a family that has been broken from death and war, needing to come back together. We see themes of greed with the circus masters at times, but all together the ideas behind everything all shine through to show that people who do good will get what they deserve in life.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure shows the how Dumbo comes into the world and put through traumas at a young age before finding his feet and learn that some people are good in life, with the fantasy of an elephant that can fly being the highlight of what makes Dumbo so special.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show the different sizes of circus that we see Dumbo being part of.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brilliant bringing Dumbo to life like nothing we could have imagined.
Scene of the Movie – The Dumbo flight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does spend too much time telling Milly she can’t follow her scientist dreams.
Final Thoughts – This is the best live action Disney film of 2019, it brings the scale of the idea to life, which looks wonderful and has great performances too.
Overall: Beautiful Fantasy Film.
Story: Dumbo starts when Holt Farrier (Farrell) returns from war, to re-join the circus run by Max Medici (DeVito) where his kids Milly (Parker) and Joe (Hobbins) have been living and working for years, Holt has come back injured, with the only job offered to him, being cleaning up after the elephants, one of which is pregnant giving birth to an elephant with giant ears, which only causes chaos on his debut in the circus.
After Dumbo’s mother is taken away, he is left alone, while the children learn about his flying skills, which turns Max’s circus into the talk of the country, attracting V. A. Vandevere (Keaton) who wants to offer Max the world for Dumbo.
Thoughts on Dumbo
Characters – Holt Farrier is a war veteran widow that has returned to his children in a circus. He has been suffering with his time away, this has seen him not show as much affection as his wife would have, he takes the only job he can get which sees him training and cleaning up the elephants, his time back in the circus does bring him back to his kids, where he learns how important life still can be. V. A. Vandevere is the operator of Dreamland, he sales the idea of a better life for the whole troop, even if he has his own ideas to just make himself rich. Max Medici runs the small circus that discovers Dumbo’s talent, he has always been in the game for the money and can’t resist the idea of money when Vandevere arrives but must learn there is more to his life than money. Colette Marchant is the star performer in Vandevere show, she has been for years though she is just the hottest thing he has going for a while, she doe solve to perform. Dumbo is the baby elephant with giant eyes, who loses his mother, but has the incredible ability to fly, drawing crowds from miles.
Performances – Colin Farrell gives us a wonderful performance as the caring veteran who has been struggling with his own problems once returning from war. Michael Keaton enjoy the villainous role, while Danny DeVito is shows the desperation while still bringing the heart needing for the role, Eva Green shines to as the beautiful performer too.
Story – The story here shows how a small circus that finds themselves with a star attraction in Dumbo, which sees them become a success that the whole country wants to see. The story might focus on Dumbo being forced into performing after having his mother taken away, while deeper down we get to see a family that has been broken from death and war, needing to come back together. We see themes of greed with the circus masters at times, but all together the ideas behind everything all shine through to show that people who do good will get what they deserve in life.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure shows the how Dumbo comes into the world and put through traumas at a young age before finding his feet and learn that some people are good in life, with the fantasy of an elephant that can fly being the highlight of what makes Dumbo so special.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show the different sizes of circus that we see Dumbo being part of.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are brilliant bringing Dumbo to life like nothing we could have imagined.
Scene of the Movie – The Dumbo flight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does spend too much time telling Milly she can’t follow her scientist dreams.
Final Thoughts – This is the best live action Disney film of 2019, it brings the scale of the idea to life, which looks wonderful and has great performances too.
Overall: Beautiful Fantasy Film.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/