Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Baseball economics has long a source of serious debate amongst fans, players, and teams. The contentious issues of how to divide the revenue in an equitable manner led to the cancellation of the playoffs and World Series in 1994 and is still largely unresolved today. While smaller market teams are given funds from a luxury tax imposed on larger payroll teams, it still fails to provide an even competitive playing field when large market teams, such as the New York Yankees, can field teams with a $225 million-plus payroll while the smaller market teams have to make do with budgets often under $40 million.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Most of the female cast. (2 more)
Poirot's backstory.
Kenneth Branagh's mustache.
Slow-moving with little payoff. (2 more)
Nothing substantial happens for the first hour.
Not entertaining. Perfect example of first world problems.
A Drowzy Whodunit Loaded with Mediocrity
Death on the Nile is the sequel to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express with director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh returning. The mystery thriller is based on the 1937 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Death on the Nile has been adapted before as a 1978 film and as a 2004 episode of the Poirot television series starring David Suchet.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Movies Are Prayers in Books
Jun 18, 2017
An Interesting Perspective
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Fisherman's Friends (2019) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019 (Updated Mar 18, 2019)
Formulaic, clichéd, enjoyable bit of fun
Hot on the heels of Fighting with my Family comes yet another true story that I feel I should have known more about beforehand, but didn't. Fisherman's Friends tells the story of a group of singing Cornish fishermen who, in 2010, managed to land themselves not only a top 10 album but an appearance on Glastonbury's pyramid stage! The plot follows a much more formulaic and clichéd approach than Fighting with my Family does though, not quite managing to come close to the high bar that set, but is enjoyable enough all the same.
We begin by following a group of four men heading out on their stag do in the beautiful town of Port Isaac in Cornwall. A&R man Danny (Daniel Mays), his annoying record exec boss Troy (Noel Clarke) and a couple of their colleagues all arrive in the small fishing town for the weekend and immediately find themselves on the wrong side of the locals - driving the wrong way down a narrow one way street, foolishly ordering lager instead of bitter in the local pub (they don't serve fizzy drinks there) and needing to be rescued after their careless weekend enjoyment finds them all stranded at sea. City types who think they know it all, but haven't got a clue.
The fishermen that rescued the lads turn out to be part of a popular local singing group - singing sea shanties together while working out at sea and regularly putting on small concerts for the locals down on the harbour. It's while performing one of those gigs that Danny and his friends come across them. After a few moments of watching, Troy tells Danny that he wants him to go over and sign them up, and that he's not to take no for an answer. Off he goes, not knowing that it's all just a big joke, while his three colleagues all return home. Danny is left behind, struggling to try and convince the group that their unique sound is going to make them all big stars.
Out of the group of fishermen, only a handful of them are really explored and fleshed out as characters in any kind of way, with the majority of them simply fading into the background - backing singers if you will. Jim (James Purefoy) and his father Jago (David Hayman), are the main focus of the movie, along with Jim's single-mum daughter Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton), who Danny eventually begins to strike up a friendship with, and her young daughter. One of the other fishermen runs the local pub at the heart of the community, along with his wife, but is struggling to make ends meet in a sub-plot which comes to a head later on in the movie.
Fisherman's Friends is a movie full of clichés - the city slicker who initially doesn't understand the simple life, the familiar rom-com couple who start off disliking one another, but will clearly be falling madly in love before long, annoying city types who don't even look like they know how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone become successfully music moguls. But, despite it all, the movie works considerably well. The relationship and chemistry between Danny and Alwyn is believable, and the highs and lows that the group go through on their journey to stardom is both heartwarming and fun in equal measure. It's the kind of reliable movie you could quite happily sit and watch on the TV, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
We begin by following a group of four men heading out on their stag do in the beautiful town of Port Isaac in Cornwall. A&R man Danny (Daniel Mays), his annoying record exec boss Troy (Noel Clarke) and a couple of their colleagues all arrive in the small fishing town for the weekend and immediately find themselves on the wrong side of the locals - driving the wrong way down a narrow one way street, foolishly ordering lager instead of bitter in the local pub (they don't serve fizzy drinks there) and needing to be rescued after their careless weekend enjoyment finds them all stranded at sea. City types who think they know it all, but haven't got a clue.
The fishermen that rescued the lads turn out to be part of a popular local singing group - singing sea shanties together while working out at sea and regularly putting on small concerts for the locals down on the harbour. It's while performing one of those gigs that Danny and his friends come across them. After a few moments of watching, Troy tells Danny that he wants him to go over and sign them up, and that he's not to take no for an answer. Off he goes, not knowing that it's all just a big joke, while his three colleagues all return home. Danny is left behind, struggling to try and convince the group that their unique sound is going to make them all big stars.
Out of the group of fishermen, only a handful of them are really explored and fleshed out as characters in any kind of way, with the majority of them simply fading into the background - backing singers if you will. Jim (James Purefoy) and his father Jago (David Hayman), are the main focus of the movie, along with Jim's single-mum daughter Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton), who Danny eventually begins to strike up a friendship with, and her young daughter. One of the other fishermen runs the local pub at the heart of the community, along with his wife, but is struggling to make ends meet in a sub-plot which comes to a head later on in the movie.
Fisherman's Friends is a movie full of clichés - the city slicker who initially doesn't understand the simple life, the familiar rom-com couple who start off disliking one another, but will clearly be falling madly in love before long, annoying city types who don't even look like they know how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone become successfully music moguls. But, despite it all, the movie works considerably well. The relationship and chemistry between Danny and Alwyn is believable, and the highs and lows that the group go through on their journey to stardom is both heartwarming and fun in equal measure. It's the kind of reliable movie you could quite happily sit and watch on the TV, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Good sci-fi, but a poor sequel
Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot in common with last year’s Jurassic World. They both are long-awaited sequels to fan-favourite blockbusters, bringing a new generation the same thrills and spills of their forbearers.
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Videodrome (1983) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Max Renn is the president of Civic TV channel 83, a channel known for showcasing the most erotic and violent programming that anyone has ever come across. As you can imagine, the channel has a specific audience and Max takes it upon himself to find the next big thing for the network. Everything he comes across is too tame until Max gets ahold of Harlan. Harlan is an employee who specializes in pirate video broadcasts. It's through Harlan that Max is first exposed to Videodrome, an hour program that centralizes on torture and murder. Max becomes obsessed with Videodrome and realizes it may be the next step for channel 83. He does everything within his power to find out more about Videodrome ranging from where it's originally broadcast to tracking down the original supplier and even watching countless hours of bootleg videotapes. In addition to his obsession, Max begins hallucinating. Through his investigations, he finds out Videodrome transmissions cause tumors in the brain of whoever is able to actually watch it and therefore alter reality through hallucination. As Max begins to lose touch with reality, the people behind Videodrome have bigger plans for Max. Much bigger.
Videodrome is an interesting sci-fi horror film. It's the type of film that gets better with each viewing. It's also got some pretty amazing make-up effects by the incredible Rick Baker (An American Werewolf in London, The Frighteners). So while the film does show its age at times (mainly during the segment where Max is having his hallucination recorded by Spectacular Optacle owner, Barry Convex), the majority of the special effects hold up incredibly well after 26 years. It also boasts one of the most original and intriguing death scenes (Barry Convex's) of any horror film.
The David Cronenberg helmed psycological thriller is more than just great special effects. In all honesty, it's spectacularly odd. The hallucinations alone will leave some viewers scratching their heads, but there is a clever and intelligent story beneath all the weirdness. The story focuses on TV, which is a source of entertainment that everyone relies on and it takes aim at sex and violence. The two themes people are attracted to the most, but the consequences the film comes up with for watching a program that uses these themes to the extreme is truly one of its defining moments. So while whipping a TV set may seem like an illogical idea to most, Videodrome's superb writing makes it seem almost logical. The fact that the film concentrates on something like television that everyone can relate to while creating an intelligent reasoning for it makes the entire experience more believable.
Videodrome is a cult classic for a good reason. While it may seem odd at first, it's actually an intelligent and well-made sci-fi horror film. That old layer of skin may look and feel like a film that is too weird for most audiences that's outdated and doesn't make any sense, but beneath that old flesh is the new flesh. In this case, the new flesh is actually a superb film with a quick witted script, a terrific story, special effects that hold up to this day, and just a worthwhile experience overall. It's a cult classic that's worthy of being added to any horror or sci-fi fan's collection. Long live the new flesh.
Videodrome is an interesting sci-fi horror film. It's the type of film that gets better with each viewing. It's also got some pretty amazing make-up effects by the incredible Rick Baker (An American Werewolf in London, The Frighteners). So while the film does show its age at times (mainly during the segment where Max is having his hallucination recorded by Spectacular Optacle owner, Barry Convex), the majority of the special effects hold up incredibly well after 26 years. It also boasts one of the most original and intriguing death scenes (Barry Convex's) of any horror film.
The David Cronenberg helmed psycological thriller is more than just great special effects. In all honesty, it's spectacularly odd. The hallucinations alone will leave some viewers scratching their heads, but there is a clever and intelligent story beneath all the weirdness. The story focuses on TV, which is a source of entertainment that everyone relies on and it takes aim at sex and violence. The two themes people are attracted to the most, but the consequences the film comes up with for watching a program that uses these themes to the extreme is truly one of its defining moments. So while whipping a TV set may seem like an illogical idea to most, Videodrome's superb writing makes it seem almost logical. The fact that the film concentrates on something like television that everyone can relate to while creating an intelligent reasoning for it makes the entire experience more believable.
Videodrome is a cult classic for a good reason. While it may seem odd at first, it's actually an intelligent and well-made sci-fi horror film. That old layer of skin may look and feel like a film that is too weird for most audiences that's outdated and doesn't make any sense, but beneath that old flesh is the new flesh. In this case, the new flesh is actually a superb film with a quick witted script, a terrific story, special effects that hold up to this day, and just a worthwhile experience overall. It's a cult classic that's worthy of being added to any horror or sci-fi fan's collection. Long live the new flesh.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney is now living off the map, helping women in need of a helping hand, when the killer tracks her down, she comes to help from her hiding where she will come face to face with the true killer. Dewey is now working on the set of the Stab films, he is helping one of the stars of the film understand her character and gets stuck into the investigation this time. Gale isn’t as cut throat as she once was, her career didn’t go as well as it could have, she must put up with the needy actress who is playing her in the film. Detective Mark Kincaid is the cop assigned to try and track down the killer willing to push boundaries to uncover the truth. We get a string of actors that will be playing to the roles of the characters in the franchise, with Jennifer Jolie preparing to be Gale being the highlight of these and if not the whole movie. Our suspect list is long which only adds to the mystery we might be seeing through the film.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return and give good performances through the film, they don’t build on what we know from them, Parker Posey however steals the whole movie, every scene she is in we want to see more from her. This film does suffer from having too many actors which does stop giving the stars the time required to truly shine.
Story – The story follows the production of the third ‘Stab’ movie which is from the series of films that are based on the events of the Scream films, that starts getting its own body count from a new killer with connections to Sidney’s mother. This could easily be considered the weakest story of the three so far in the franchise, this is mostly because of the idea of being on the film set with the actors and real people gets overly complicated and takes away from the suspense we previously experience. As for the twists we learn the rules that make things feel like a larger scale operation which even after seeing the previous film do fit together much like what many of the 80s slashers did.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the slasher side of things which are all routine enough and work for the film, with the mystery coming from just who is truly behind the murders.
Settings – Setting the film in Hollywood, mostly in and around a film set makes us relive the moments we have gotten to know through the years and most importantly show us how a film could be getting made.
Special Effects – The effects in the movie continue the style we have seen before, it gives us the blood we need to make look real without being over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The continuing reference to how difficult Scream 2 was to make.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the supporting characters, mostly the actors don’t get much screen time.
Final Thoughts – This is the third part of one of the greatest horror trilogies, it continues to show us behind the curtain of horror movies with a twist we didn’t know about to keep the story feeling fresh throughout the film.
Overall: This is how to make a trilogy.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return and give good performances through the film, they don’t build on what we know from them, Parker Posey however steals the whole movie, every scene she is in we want to see more from her. This film does suffer from having too many actors which does stop giving the stars the time required to truly shine.
Story – The story follows the production of the third ‘Stab’ movie which is from the series of films that are based on the events of the Scream films, that starts getting its own body count from a new killer with connections to Sidney’s mother. This could easily be considered the weakest story of the three so far in the franchise, this is mostly because of the idea of being on the film set with the actors and real people gets overly complicated and takes away from the suspense we previously experience. As for the twists we learn the rules that make things feel like a larger scale operation which even after seeing the previous film do fit together much like what many of the 80s slashers did.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the slasher side of things which are all routine enough and work for the film, with the mystery coming from just who is truly behind the murders.
Settings – Setting the film in Hollywood, mostly in and around a film set makes us relive the moments we have gotten to know through the years and most importantly show us how a film could be getting made.
Special Effects – The effects in the movie continue the style we have seen before, it gives us the blood we need to make look real without being over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The continuing reference to how difficult Scream 2 was to make.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the supporting characters, mostly the actors don’t get much screen time.
Final Thoughts – This is the third part of one of the greatest horror trilogies, it continues to show us behind the curtain of horror movies with a twist we didn’t know about to keep the story feeling fresh throughout the film.
Overall: This is how to make a trilogy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.