Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pain & Gain (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Michael Bay’s latest film Pain and Gain suffers from a bit of performance anxiety. It starts hot and flashy, becomes humorous and then starts to drag as it realizes it needs to actually deliver. This is unfortunate because if Bay focused on delivering an entertaining movie from start to finish he may have succeeded. Instead we are constantly reminded by expository text on screen and one of the five unnecessary voiceovers that “sometimes the facts are stranger than fiction.” And the facts are that we get a film here that starts out as a comedy, evolves into a kidnapping/extortion story with a few more jokes only to end with minimal action and no redeeming opportunities for our protagonists. Plus the final jokes or shock opportunities are lost in the fact that our main characters become less and less likeable as the story evolves.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Mar 6, 2020
Consistent Blast
In the Whodunit drama, detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) has to uncover who killed famous author Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer).
Acting: 10
I can’t speak enough about the amazing performances that made this movie come alive. I honestly don’t know where to start or who had the best chops because they were all so wonderful. Jamie Lee Curtis has always been one of my favorite actresses and her role didn’t disappoint here. She’s Linda Robinson who serves as somewhat of a matriarch in the family. She delivers her lines with such perfect timing and such fluid grace that it’s hard not to love her character. I also appreciated Jaeden Martell’s role in the movie. I can only imagine how hard it is as the youngest cast member when you have all these heavy-hitting stars beside you, but he definitely held his own by putting on a performance here that was even better than his role in It, in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
You are immediately thrown into this story from jump like you are springboarding into the sky. The intrigue is immediate which gave me an instant feeling that I was going to like this movie. It’s a perfect setup for what is to come.
Characters: 10
Nothing short of spectacular. Again, where do I start? I love that every single one of these characters in the movie have a rich story that’s connected to the deceased. There is also some kind of growth (whether negative or positive) with each character which is hard to juggle when you’re talking about managing runtime as well as screentime. I could pinpoint one specific role, but I loved each and every single one of them. That’s not a very common thing to say.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Director Rian Johnson really hits home on the visuals with an interesting blend of vivid colors and bleak imagery. I have a great appreciation with how the movie was ultimately cut. It’s a film that doesn’t rush, but takes its time, really capturing special dramatic moments. It almost feels like a Wes Anderson meets Stephen King type of cinematic adventure.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
From shock value to mystery, Knives Out keeps you on your toes start to finish. It’s funny, it’s smart, and, most importantly, it’s original. This kind of movie has been done dozens of times before and this one is, by far, the most unique of the bunch. It truly is in a class of its own.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
With a 130-minute runtime, it’s only natural that there would be a slip-up in pace here and there. Fortunately, the slowdowns are very brief and barely noticeable. I can only think of one or two moments where I thought, “They could’ve cut that.” The momentum is pretty incredible otherwise.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ends strongly, yet smoothly with a finite resolution. I found it funny that the ending was actually a subtle knife into the hearts of the antagonists. The conclusion is a beautiful whisper.
Overall: 99
Knives Out is hilarious yet touching at the same time. With an original storyline, consistent pace, and brilliant characters the movie succeeds on just about every level. It was both refreshing and unexpected to watch a movie this grand.
Acting: 10
I can’t speak enough about the amazing performances that made this movie come alive. I honestly don’t know where to start or who had the best chops because they were all so wonderful. Jamie Lee Curtis has always been one of my favorite actresses and her role didn’t disappoint here. She’s Linda Robinson who serves as somewhat of a matriarch in the family. She delivers her lines with such perfect timing and such fluid grace that it’s hard not to love her character. I also appreciated Jaeden Martell’s role in the movie. I can only imagine how hard it is as the youngest cast member when you have all these heavy-hitting stars beside you, but he definitely held his own by putting on a performance here that was even better than his role in It, in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
You are immediately thrown into this story from jump like you are springboarding into the sky. The intrigue is immediate which gave me an instant feeling that I was going to like this movie. It’s a perfect setup for what is to come.
Characters: 10
Nothing short of spectacular. Again, where do I start? I love that every single one of these characters in the movie have a rich story that’s connected to the deceased. There is also some kind of growth (whether negative or positive) with each character which is hard to juggle when you’re talking about managing runtime as well as screentime. I could pinpoint one specific role, but I loved each and every single one of them. That’s not a very common thing to say.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Director Rian Johnson really hits home on the visuals with an interesting blend of vivid colors and bleak imagery. I have a great appreciation with how the movie was ultimately cut. It’s a film that doesn’t rush, but takes its time, really capturing special dramatic moments. It almost feels like a Wes Anderson meets Stephen King type of cinematic adventure.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
From shock value to mystery, Knives Out keeps you on your toes start to finish. It’s funny, it’s smart, and, most importantly, it’s original. This kind of movie has been done dozens of times before and this one is, by far, the most unique of the bunch. It truly is in a class of its own.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
With a 130-minute runtime, it’s only natural that there would be a slip-up in pace here and there. Fortunately, the slowdowns are very brief and barely noticeable. I can only think of one or two moments where I thought, “They could’ve cut that.” The momentum is pretty incredible otherwise.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ends strongly, yet smoothly with a finite resolution. I found it funny that the ending was actually a subtle knife into the hearts of the antagonists. The conclusion is a beautiful whisper.
Overall: 99
Knives Out is hilarious yet touching at the same time. With an original storyline, consistent pace, and brilliant characters the movie succeeds on just about every level. It was both refreshing and unexpected to watch a movie this grand.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) in Movies
Apr 25, 2021
Kaluuya and Stanfield excel (1 more)
Great US history lesson on the Black Panther movement
"Politics is war without bloodshed"
The ‘Judas’ in “Judas and the Black Messiah” is Bill O’Neil (LaKeith Stanfield). He works as an informer for FBI man Mitchell (Jesse Plemons), who has him over a barrel for impersonating an FBI officer. Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) runs the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther party and O’Neil is a trusted comrade on the inside.
Will O’Neil – always concerned that ‘snitches get stiches’ – stay on the side of ‘the pigs’, or be influenced by the ideals and good deeds of Chairman Fred?
Positives:
- Before this movie, I really had no idea what the Black Panthers were or how they operated. (If pushed, I would have tagged them as “internal terrorists” or similar). So this movie was really valuable to me in further understanding their role as a political movement. And their use of community programmes – focused, for example, around child nutrition and health improvements in inner cities – was a revelation.
- Given the BLM movement, and further ‘blue-on-black’ shootings, the film is timely. (Even more so for me, since the George Floyd trial verdict came out last night). “The United States vs Billie Holiday” showed how brutally the civil rights movement was put down by the authorities in the 40’s. This shows the same thing happened in the 70’s too. It’s again a movie that leaves you angry and frustrated at how poorly the black community have been abused in America. I guess counter to that is the positive view that things HAVE evidently improved significantly since then, albeit that the US is still on this journey.
- Nominated for Best Supporting Actor Oscars are both Stanfield and Kaluuya. (This is a highly debatable point, since arguably both of these gents are lead actors in the movie!) Both of them deliver outstanding performances, and Kaluuya has already picked up the BAFTA. Kaluuya demonstrates a huge amount of energy and charisma, particularly during the delivery of his stirring speeches. But Stanfield delivers a superbly nuanced performance, and perhaps impressed me even more.
- Also deserved, in a movie predominantly featuring a black cast, is recognition of the ever-excellent Jesse Plemons. As the steely-eyed FBI family man, he’s chilling to watch.
Negatives:
- I had issues with the sound mixing here. I found some of the dialogue – already hard for me to follow sometimes due to the speed of delivery and the accents – drowned out by background music and foley sounds.
- Martin Sheen’s make-up as J. Edgar Hoover was rather over-the-top and detracted from the role. (Sheen is in little more than a few cameo scenes).
Summary Thoughts:
I’m pleased I’ve managed to see this impressive Oscar contender before Sunday’s Academy Awards event. Interestingly, I noticed that historical advisors on the movie were Deborah Johnson (played here beautifully by Dominique Fishback) and the baby she was carrying (now Fred Hampton Jnr.).
As well as the two Supporting Actor nominations, it’s also up for Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Sean Bobbitt) and Best Song (for “Fight for You”, played over the end titles, and very good).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/judas-and-the-black-messiah-war-is-politics-with-bloodshed/. Thanks.)
Will O’Neil – always concerned that ‘snitches get stiches’ – stay on the side of ‘the pigs’, or be influenced by the ideals and good deeds of Chairman Fred?
Positives:
- Before this movie, I really had no idea what the Black Panthers were or how they operated. (If pushed, I would have tagged them as “internal terrorists” or similar). So this movie was really valuable to me in further understanding their role as a political movement. And their use of community programmes – focused, for example, around child nutrition and health improvements in inner cities – was a revelation.
- Given the BLM movement, and further ‘blue-on-black’ shootings, the film is timely. (Even more so for me, since the George Floyd trial verdict came out last night). “The United States vs Billie Holiday” showed how brutally the civil rights movement was put down by the authorities in the 40’s. This shows the same thing happened in the 70’s too. It’s again a movie that leaves you angry and frustrated at how poorly the black community have been abused in America. I guess counter to that is the positive view that things HAVE evidently improved significantly since then, albeit that the US is still on this journey.
- Nominated for Best Supporting Actor Oscars are both Stanfield and Kaluuya. (This is a highly debatable point, since arguably both of these gents are lead actors in the movie!) Both of them deliver outstanding performances, and Kaluuya has already picked up the BAFTA. Kaluuya demonstrates a huge amount of energy and charisma, particularly during the delivery of his stirring speeches. But Stanfield delivers a superbly nuanced performance, and perhaps impressed me even more.
- Also deserved, in a movie predominantly featuring a black cast, is recognition of the ever-excellent Jesse Plemons. As the steely-eyed FBI family man, he’s chilling to watch.
Negatives:
- I had issues with the sound mixing here. I found some of the dialogue – already hard for me to follow sometimes due to the speed of delivery and the accents – drowned out by background music and foley sounds.
- Martin Sheen’s make-up as J. Edgar Hoover was rather over-the-top and detracted from the role. (Sheen is in little more than a few cameo scenes).
Summary Thoughts:
I’m pleased I’ve managed to see this impressive Oscar contender before Sunday’s Academy Awards event. Interestingly, I noticed that historical advisors on the movie were Deborah Johnson (played here beautifully by Dominique Fishback) and the baby she was carrying (now Fred Hampton Jnr.).
As well as the two Supporting Actor nominations, it’s also up for Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Sean Bobbitt) and Best Song (for “Fight for You”, played over the end titles, and very good).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/judas-and-the-black-messiah-war-is-politics-with-bloodshed/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) in Movies
Jun 8, 2023
A Feast for the Eyes and the Heart
In 2018, Producer/Writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (THE LEGO MOVIE) presented the animated film SPIDER-MAN INTO THE SPIDERVERSE to unsuspecting audiences and this film burst onto the scene - and into our senses - with a visual cornucopia of comic-book styles that ushered in a new way to present a comic-book movie. In this film, multiple Spider-Mans from different “SpiderVerses” came to the home universe of the lead Spiderman (in this Universe, Spiderman is NOT Peter Parker, but rather Miles Morales), and they kept the comic book styles of their own universes while in the home universe of Miles.
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Nov 14, 2019
This sort of soft reboot of Hellboy is a truly mixed bag. It's just about watchable, and there are some things I liked, and a whole heap of things I didn't like.
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure 👍
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure 👍
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!