Search
Search results
AmyBee (4 KP) rated We Need to Talk About Kevin in Books
Sep 5, 2018
WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD!!! ALSO, THIS REVIEW IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO IF PARTS DON'T MAKE SENSE, WORRY NOT, I'LL BE BACK TO FINISH IT LATER!
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Angry Men (1957) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 12 Angry Men starts with our jury being taken to the jury room to make their verdict. Early conversations discuss the idea that the case being cut and dry, but when the first vote goes up only eleven men pick guilty while one man stands up and votes not guilty. He wants to discuss the case before making it quick decision on whether to send the accused the death row.
As the 12 men discuss the case the solo juror that stood up against the guilty verdict slowly starts to talk the rest of the jury into looking at the facts of the case and slowly starts to turn the jury.
12 Angry Men is one of the simplest stories you will ever see, it also takes a fresh turn on a trial film. On paper this could sound very boring, and it would be hard to talk anyone out of that, but once you watch this you will not be able t look away. When you look at what this film achieves you will bee impressed too a new level and even with this film being nearly 60 years old it hasn’t dated a single bit. (10/10)
Actor Review
Full Cast: 12 Angry Men only uses the 12 actors and I don’t think it would be fair to judge each individual performance because this could easily be the best ensemble cast of all time, each character has their different background and opinion on what is the outcome of the case. Every single cast member does a brilliant job showing just how intense being stuck on a jury can be.cast
Director Review: Sidney Lumet – Sidney gives us one of the greatest films ever put onto film, end of discussion. (10/10)
Crime: 12 Angry Men shows the 12 juror discussing a criminal case while making final verdict, this is a great insight into how they would have got to the final out come. (10/10)
Drama: 12 Angry Men gets top marks for this brilliant piece of work. (10/10)
Settings: 12 Angry Men uses just the jury room for the whole setting giving us an insight to just the conversation between the jurors. (10/10)
Suggestion: 12 Angry Men is a must watch for all the film fans out there I do still think casual film fans might find it not their cup of tea. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are all brilliant.
Worst Part: No, isn’t one.
Believability: While I have been on a jury and understand how the discussion take place this cold very well be how intense it gets in there. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for 3 Oscars
Budget: $350,000
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: They have twelve scraps of paper… Twelve chances to kill!
Overall: One of the greatest films you will ever see.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/08/25/12-angry-men-1957/
As the 12 men discuss the case the solo juror that stood up against the guilty verdict slowly starts to talk the rest of the jury into looking at the facts of the case and slowly starts to turn the jury.
12 Angry Men is one of the simplest stories you will ever see, it also takes a fresh turn on a trial film. On paper this could sound very boring, and it would be hard to talk anyone out of that, but once you watch this you will not be able t look away. When you look at what this film achieves you will bee impressed too a new level and even with this film being nearly 60 years old it hasn’t dated a single bit. (10/10)
Actor Review
Full Cast: 12 Angry Men only uses the 12 actors and I don’t think it would be fair to judge each individual performance because this could easily be the best ensemble cast of all time, each character has their different background and opinion on what is the outcome of the case. Every single cast member does a brilliant job showing just how intense being stuck on a jury can be.cast
Director Review: Sidney Lumet – Sidney gives us one of the greatest films ever put onto film, end of discussion. (10/10)
Crime: 12 Angry Men shows the 12 juror discussing a criminal case while making final verdict, this is a great insight into how they would have got to the final out come. (10/10)
Drama: 12 Angry Men gets top marks for this brilliant piece of work. (10/10)
Settings: 12 Angry Men uses just the jury room for the whole setting giving us an insight to just the conversation between the jurors. (10/10)
Suggestion: 12 Angry Men is a must watch for all the film fans out there I do still think casual film fans might find it not their cup of tea. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are all brilliant.
Worst Part: No, isn’t one.
Believability: While I have been on a jury and understand how the discussion take place this cold very well be how intense it gets in there. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for 3 Oscars
Budget: $350,000
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: They have twelve scraps of paper… Twelve chances to kill!
Overall: One of the greatest films you will ever see.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/08/25/12-angry-men-1957/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Operation Finale (2018) in Movies
Sep 11, 2018
Very Good Film with 2 Very Good Performances
The kids are back in school, the leaves are beginning to turn and Halloween is just around the corner (if you believe the displays in the stores), which means it's a "dead period" at the Cineplex for decent films. So, the BankofMarquis headed to the "Art House" to check out a well made, well directed and well acted post WWII drama - OPERATION FINALE.
Set in the early 1960's, OPERATION FINALE tells the tale of Israeli Secret Service Agent's attempt to capture Adolph Eichman in Argentina and bring him back to Israel to face a very public, world-wide trial for his role as the "Architect of the Final Solution".
In other hands, this film could have very easily devolved into a Jason Bourne-type action flick with kick-ass Mossad agents fighting Nazi-loving Argentinian police (with assists from once and future Nazi's). But, in the hands of Writer Matthew Orton (in his major Screenplay debut) and Director Chris Weitz (ABOUT A BOY) this film becomes something much more, much deeper and much more interesting than that, it becomes a character study between Eichman and Mossad Agent Peter Malkin.
The first 1/2 hour of the film starts out "action-y" enough, with the discovery of Eichman and the Mossad's planning of the caper that will bring him to justice. We get the "gathering of the team" - and there's a couple of interesting characters in this group - specifically the characters played by Nick Kroll and Melanie Laurent - but the film really takes off and finds it's footing when the team - and the film - is forced to slow down (waiting for their escape plane to show up) and coax a confession (of sorts) out of Eichman.
So the middle part of this film is really a "two-hander" interrogation between Malkin (Oscar Isaac) and Eichman (Sir Ben Kingsley) - and both really bring it. Isaac (EX MACHINA, STAR WARS) shows a sadness and vulnerability as the agent who's life was deeply affected by the death of his sister (and other family members) at the hands of the SS. He is out to nail Eichman for his crime, but discovers a humanity (both in himself and in Eichman) along the way.
But the picture really belongs to the performance of Sir Ben as Eichman. This is a larger than life actor portraying a larger than life character and more than holds the audience's attention whenever he is on the scene - and when it comes down to an interrogation of Eichman by Malkin, the positions are quickly switched and it is Eichman who is the interrogator and Malkin is in the hot seat. It's not quite an "Oscar-worthy" performance, falling just short of that, but darn good nonetheless.
The final 1/2 hour of the film falls prey to the "Argo" ending - making a more exciting escape than it was in real life - but that is just a quibble for a really good, really intelligent and really ADULT film. One that is well worth checking out at an Art House near you.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in the early 1960's, OPERATION FINALE tells the tale of Israeli Secret Service Agent's attempt to capture Adolph Eichman in Argentina and bring him back to Israel to face a very public, world-wide trial for his role as the "Architect of the Final Solution".
In other hands, this film could have very easily devolved into a Jason Bourne-type action flick with kick-ass Mossad agents fighting Nazi-loving Argentinian police (with assists from once and future Nazi's). But, in the hands of Writer Matthew Orton (in his major Screenplay debut) and Director Chris Weitz (ABOUT A BOY) this film becomes something much more, much deeper and much more interesting than that, it becomes a character study between Eichman and Mossad Agent Peter Malkin.
The first 1/2 hour of the film starts out "action-y" enough, with the discovery of Eichman and the Mossad's planning of the caper that will bring him to justice. We get the "gathering of the team" - and there's a couple of interesting characters in this group - specifically the characters played by Nick Kroll and Melanie Laurent - but the film really takes off and finds it's footing when the team - and the film - is forced to slow down (waiting for their escape plane to show up) and coax a confession (of sorts) out of Eichman.
So the middle part of this film is really a "two-hander" interrogation between Malkin (Oscar Isaac) and Eichman (Sir Ben Kingsley) - and both really bring it. Isaac (EX MACHINA, STAR WARS) shows a sadness and vulnerability as the agent who's life was deeply affected by the death of his sister (and other family members) at the hands of the SS. He is out to nail Eichman for his crime, but discovers a humanity (both in himself and in Eichman) along the way.
But the picture really belongs to the performance of Sir Ben as Eichman. This is a larger than life actor portraying a larger than life character and more than holds the audience's attention whenever he is on the scene - and when it comes down to an interrogation of Eichman by Malkin, the positions are quickly switched and it is Eichman who is the interrogator and Malkin is in the hot seat. It's not quite an "Oscar-worthy" performance, falling just short of that, but darn good nonetheless.
The final 1/2 hour of the film falls prey to the "Argo" ending - making a more exciting escape than it was in real life - but that is just a quibble for a really good, really intelligent and really ADULT film. One that is well worth checking out at an Art House near you.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Gridiron Gang (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Often the true mark of cinema, this is the category where you will often find the majority of the award winners. The challenge of combining realistic yet sympathetic characters with gripping stories and emotional themes can be a true challenge, but when it works, this is where Hollywood truly shines.
In his latest film Gridiron Gang Dwayne Johnson, better known as the Rock has an appealing mix of sports action, drama, and comedy on his hands that will not only touch you, but will have you cheering.
The Rock stars as Sean Porter, a former college football star who works in a L.A. Area detention center for juvenile offenders. Saddened by the wasted lives of the young men, Sean looks for them to find an alternative to the life of crime, violence, and early death that so many of his inmates face.
With 75% of offenders likely to become repeat offenders, Sean decides to start a football team with the hope of teaching the young inmates the value of hard work, sacrifice, playing as a team, and duty.
Despite some initial obstacles from the system as well as school leagues hesitant to play against convicted offenders, the team son finds themselves with a full schedule and less than three weeks to go before their first game.
The hard practice and coaching style of Sean wears on the players, but they soon find themselves in their first game against a hardened and proven team which underscores just how much work they have to do.
As pressure mounts from all sides, Sean must find a way to meld his team into a winner and prove that this is a project worth doing and that the young men in his care are not lost causes, but are deserving of a new start.
While much of the film may play out as you would expect with the team coming together to play the big game, what is refreshing about the film is the solid performance of The Rock who shows that he is more than just an action star and is very capable of acting. He mixes his portrayal of Sean with equal amounts toughness and caring, to create what is easily his most mature and well defined character to date.
The supporting cast is good, especially Xzibit as Malcolm Moore, who provides a solid supporting presence to The Rock.
While the film is heavy on football action, it also does not shy away from giving the audience a glimpse of the life that the team comes from and how old rivalries and
hostilities can follow them even when they try to leave them behind with the best of intentions.
The action on the field is first-rate as the game choreography never lets up, and is easily the most accurate portrayal of the sport ever committed to film. You can tell that the cast is playing with heart and passion and not simply going through the motions.
Despite a few predictable moments, Gridiron Gang is a very pleasant surprise that is one of the years most enjoyable and satisfying films.
In his latest film Gridiron Gang Dwayne Johnson, better known as the Rock has an appealing mix of sports action, drama, and comedy on his hands that will not only touch you, but will have you cheering.
The Rock stars as Sean Porter, a former college football star who works in a L.A. Area detention center for juvenile offenders. Saddened by the wasted lives of the young men, Sean looks for them to find an alternative to the life of crime, violence, and early death that so many of his inmates face.
With 75% of offenders likely to become repeat offenders, Sean decides to start a football team with the hope of teaching the young inmates the value of hard work, sacrifice, playing as a team, and duty.
Despite some initial obstacles from the system as well as school leagues hesitant to play against convicted offenders, the team son finds themselves with a full schedule and less than three weeks to go before their first game.
The hard practice and coaching style of Sean wears on the players, but they soon find themselves in their first game against a hardened and proven team which underscores just how much work they have to do.
As pressure mounts from all sides, Sean must find a way to meld his team into a winner and prove that this is a project worth doing and that the young men in his care are not lost causes, but are deserving of a new start.
While much of the film may play out as you would expect with the team coming together to play the big game, what is refreshing about the film is the solid performance of The Rock who shows that he is more than just an action star and is very capable of acting. He mixes his portrayal of Sean with equal amounts toughness and caring, to create what is easily his most mature and well defined character to date.
The supporting cast is good, especially Xzibit as Malcolm Moore, who provides a solid supporting presence to The Rock.
While the film is heavy on football action, it also does not shy away from giving the audience a glimpse of the life that the team comes from and how old rivalries and
hostilities can follow them even when they try to leave them behind with the best of intentions.
The action on the field is first-rate as the game choreography never lets up, and is easily the most accurate portrayal of the sport ever committed to film. You can tell that the cast is playing with heart and passion and not simply going through the motions.
Despite a few predictable moments, Gridiron Gang is a very pleasant surprise that is one of the years most enjoyable and satisfying films.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Only The Brave (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the year's best films
Films based on true events are ten-a-penny these days. From 2015s stunning American Sniper and 2016s breath-taking Deepwater Horizon to the critically acclaimed Patriots Day, there seems to be no stopping the ‘true to life’ variety of movies that has suddenly become very popular.
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
A real hidden gem.
I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than the two-line blurb on my local cinema's website. Released to a muted fanfare, this twisty-turny crime drama is a surprisingly gripping and taut thriller, with some stand-out performances from the cast.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Dual Destinies
Games
App
************************************************ ※NOTICE※ This game does not support devices...