Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
As a movie star, which, let’s face it, is George Clooney’s main and best job, we haven’t seen the guy for four years, since the largely underwhelming Money Monster. And, as a director, you’d be forgiven for thinking he hasn’t done anything for years, so unmemorable was 2017’s Suburbicon, with Matt Damon. It is a worrying trend of his entire career, that despite some genuine gold, and even a few diamonds here and there over the years, there are way more duds, with large pockets of “meh” thrown in.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
ClareR (5603 KP) rated The German House in Books
Dec 30, 2019
The German House is set in Frankfurt in 1963 at the time of the Auschwitz trials. Eva Bruhns is a 24 year old translator, and is asked to translate the testimony of the Polish speaking Jews who were imprisoned at Auschwitz. Eva was a small child during the war, and remembers little of it. She seems to be mostly concerned with her romance and possible engagement to Jürgen Schoorman, a wealthy businessman. However, when David Miller, a Canadian lawyer who is working for the prosecution at the trials, hires Eva as a translator, her world view and her opinion of her parents and the Germans involved in the war, changes. Her parents don’t want to talk about their involvement in the war, and Jürgen doesn’t think that she should be involved in something so distasteful. But this isn’t just a coming of age story. Granted, Eva does grow in this novel. She learns about the collective guilt of the German nation with regards to the Holocaust, and looks at how the children of the war generation reacted to something that was in effect hidden from them. They called it Vergangenheitsbewältigung - the struggle to come to term with and overcome the past. Young Germans wanted to analyse, digest and learn to live with the past, and the Holocaust in particular. Eva can’t understand why her parents will not own up to their share of the guilt.
I really enjoyed this novel. It was hard-going at times, and it did read like a translated novel. It did however, catch the spirit of the time. Eva’s longing to break out of the societal restrictions of the time (for example when she refers to how much she likes a new Beatles song that Jürgen can’t understand, he doesn’t like pop music) and Jürgen’s wish that she stops work as soon as she gets engaged (as a modern woman, I was positively fuming at this point!!).
I was fascinated by the trip the Court makes to Auschwitz - somewhere I’ve never been, and after a trip to Oranienburg (a camp for political prisoners outside Berlin), I feel that I would struggle to go. This was one of the most emotional parts of the book.
The side story involving Eva’s older sister is also fascinating, and I feel portrays the effect of seeing so much violence and hatred as a young child (no spoilers here!).
All in all, after I got used to the writing style, I really enjoyed this. It was an interesting insight into the post-war years, and West Germany’s reaction to the damage and destruction that the Nazis had caused during the Holocaust.
This is well worth a read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this book to read and honestly review.
I really enjoyed this novel. It was hard-going at times, and it did read like a translated novel. It did however, catch the spirit of the time. Eva’s longing to break out of the societal restrictions of the time (for example when she refers to how much she likes a new Beatles song that Jürgen can’t understand, he doesn’t like pop music) and Jürgen’s wish that she stops work as soon as she gets engaged (as a modern woman, I was positively fuming at this point!!).
I was fascinated by the trip the Court makes to Auschwitz - somewhere I’ve never been, and after a trip to Oranienburg (a camp for political prisoners outside Berlin), I feel that I would struggle to go. This was one of the most emotional parts of the book.
The side story involving Eva’s older sister is also fascinating, and I feel portrays the effect of seeing so much violence and hatred as a young child (no spoilers here!).
All in all, after I got used to the writing style, I really enjoyed this. It was an interesting insight into the post-war years, and West Germany’s reaction to the damage and destruction that the Nazis had caused during the Holocaust.
This is well worth a read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this book to read and honestly review.
Daily Organizer: Day Planner
Shopping and Productivity
App
Give your busy mind a break. With this app, you will never forget anything again. • Apple “New...
Daily Tracker: Journal & Diary
Productivity and Health & Fitness
App
Give your busy mind a break. With this app, you will never forget anything again. • Apple “New...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Equalizer (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m not going to waste ANY time getting started with this one. No, you’re not daydreaming. Denzel Washington has teamed-up again with director Antoine Fuqua and once again, they’ve created another outstanding masterpiece of a movie. In fact, the film has seen such postive reviews so far that there’s already talk of a sequal and even a possible franchise. After seeing the film myself, I would not be surprised in the least if
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
Daniel Radcliffe: The Biography
Book
Daniel Radcliffe went from shy schoolboy to the world's most famous boy wizard overnight. Aged just...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Laundromat (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2021
Is this the dullest movie title in film history?
In "The Laundromat", Ellen Martin (Meryl Streep) loses her husband Joe (James Cromwell) in a boating accident. She expects a multi-million dollar insurance payout, but is frustrated that the insurance companies evaporate in a miasma of shell-companies and double-dealing. Her compulsive investigations lead her to two Panamanian-based double dealers: Jürgen Mossack (Gary Oldman) and Ramón Fonseca (Antonio Banderas).
Based on a true story, a hack of the company's 2.6 TB of email data led to the 2016 scandal known as "The Panama Papers": something that dragged into the headlines the alleged dodgy-dealings of many celebrities including David Cameron.
Positives:
- Meryl Steep delivers another superb performance as the grieving avenging widow.
- There's a "twist" in the final scene which I didn't see coming, and which was impressive.
Negatives:
- This is a really strange and disjointed movie. It seems to be trying to be "The Big Short", but is a significant fail. There are numerous quirky scenes, most involving Oldman and Banderas. But there is enough bat-shit crazy stuff in here to make you think that either Sonderbergh, or the writers, or both were on acid. What was with the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start? And why the anonymisation of the 'hominids'? Lots of bonkers stuff.
- The movie is made up of a series of chapters ("Lessons"), but the connection between the lesson title and the "message" conveyed is loose at best. It's all a bit of a convoluted mess.
- The script seems to assume a school-boy level of knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, some of the explanations of Mssrs, Oldman and Banderas come across as extremely patronising 'mansplaining'.
Summary Thoughts on "The Laundromat": There's a stellar cast involved with this one, and the subject matter in the hands of an Adam McKay could have been compelling. But as it is, it's rather a disjointed mess. It's worth a watch just to see the actors at work. But that's about the long and the short of it. Watch "The Big Short" again instead.
This has been sitting on my Netflix box for a long time without a watch, and this is mostly because the title suggested something completely different (and not of great interest). (Yes, I understand in retrospect that the movie is partially concerned with money laundering!) It was only my wife suggesting we watch it that pushed it onto the list. If it had been titled something like "The Panama Papers" I would have probably watched it sooner!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/18/the-laundromat-is-this-the-worst-title-of-any-movie-in-film-history/. Thanks.)
Based on a true story, a hack of the company's 2.6 TB of email data led to the 2016 scandal known as "The Panama Papers": something that dragged into the headlines the alleged dodgy-dealings of many celebrities including David Cameron.
Positives:
- Meryl Steep delivers another superb performance as the grieving avenging widow.
- There's a "twist" in the final scene which I didn't see coming, and which was impressive.
Negatives:
- This is a really strange and disjointed movie. It seems to be trying to be "The Big Short", but is a significant fail. There are numerous quirky scenes, most involving Oldman and Banderas. But there is enough bat-shit crazy stuff in here to make you think that either Sonderbergh, or the writers, or both were on acid. What was with the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start? And why the anonymisation of the 'hominids'? Lots of bonkers stuff.
- The movie is made up of a series of chapters ("Lessons"), but the connection between the lesson title and the "message" conveyed is loose at best. It's all a bit of a convoluted mess.
- The script seems to assume a school-boy level of knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, some of the explanations of Mssrs, Oldman and Banderas come across as extremely patronising 'mansplaining'.
Summary Thoughts on "The Laundromat": There's a stellar cast involved with this one, and the subject matter in the hands of an Adam McKay could have been compelling. But as it is, it's rather a disjointed mess. It's worth a watch just to see the actors at work. But that's about the long and the short of it. Watch "The Big Short" again instead.
This has been sitting on my Netflix box for a long time without a watch, and this is mostly because the title suggested something completely different (and not of great interest). (Yes, I understand in retrospect that the movie is partially concerned with money laundering!) It was only my wife suggesting we watch it that pushed it onto the list. If it had been titled something like "The Panama Papers" I would have probably watched it sooner!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/18/the-laundromat-is-this-the-worst-title-of-any-movie-in-film-history/. Thanks.)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hawkeye in TV
Dec 23, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Marvel Studios continue their streak of enjoyable mini-series with Hawkeye, a series that was met with a fair amount of indifference upon its announcement, which is understandable. On the surface , Clint Barton isn't the most exciting Avenger to build a series around, but Hawkeye surprises with a team of decent writers, and a story adapted from Matt Fraction and David Aja's acclaimed comic book run.
Most of Barton's specific plot beats revolve around his family, and his loss of hearing. The human elements ensure that he remains a relatable, street level character. The "Hawkeye" that this series is really about of course is MCU newcomer Kate Bishop, a fan favourite comic character who is portrayed wonderfully by Hailee Steinfeld. The series is essentially her origin story, and I for one can't wait to see her in future projects. The chemistry between Steinfeld and Jeremy Renner is great, and provides a huge amount of heart to the overall story.
Florence Pugh has a welcome return as Yelena, and her involvement ensures that Hawkeye is as much of a tribute to Black Widow as anything else, and serves some much needed closure for her concluded story arc that has been frustratingly absent since the events of Avengers: Endgame.
Elsewhere, the likes of Vera Farmiga, Tony Dalton, and Alaqua Cox make up a strong supporting cast, and sets up an upcoming series for Echo, a deeper cut from the Marvel vaults, but one that I'm intrigued to see develop.
And then of course, there's motherfucking Kingpin. Arguably the most popular character from the Netflix shows, the decision to bring Vincent Donofrio back as Wilson Fisk is a smart one. His presence in the MCU is incredibly exciting to me, and Donofrio does and excellent job once again, at filling the boots of one of Marvel's most intimidating villains. Welcome back sir.
There are plenty of exciting action set pieces sprinkled throughout (a car chase involving various trick arrows is a particular highlight) and the decision to keep Hawkeye firmly street level in its execution is a wise one. It allows New York City to feel like a character in it's own right, and the Christmas setting adds to that. It does feel like a proper holiday watch at times, and this is probably why the show feels so goofy on more than one occasion. I know that the MCU likes to keep the mood light for the most part, and is often found guilty of undercutting serious or epic moments with jokes. Hawkeye occasionally goes overboard with these moments, especially in the finale. It's not enough to derail what is an incredibly entertaining series, but it's a little frustrating.
Overall though, Hawkeye is another decent and fleshed out mini series in this sprawling franchise. The extra runtime of a season has ensured that all of the MCU shows this year have been high quality and worth watching. I just hope it's not too long until we get a Kate Bishop/Yelena reunion!
Most of Barton's specific plot beats revolve around his family, and his loss of hearing. The human elements ensure that he remains a relatable, street level character. The "Hawkeye" that this series is really about of course is MCU newcomer Kate Bishop, a fan favourite comic character who is portrayed wonderfully by Hailee Steinfeld. The series is essentially her origin story, and I for one can't wait to see her in future projects. The chemistry between Steinfeld and Jeremy Renner is great, and provides a huge amount of heart to the overall story.
Florence Pugh has a welcome return as Yelena, and her involvement ensures that Hawkeye is as much of a tribute to Black Widow as anything else, and serves some much needed closure for her concluded story arc that has been frustratingly absent since the events of Avengers: Endgame.
Elsewhere, the likes of Vera Farmiga, Tony Dalton, and Alaqua Cox make up a strong supporting cast, and sets up an upcoming series for Echo, a deeper cut from the Marvel vaults, but one that I'm intrigued to see develop.
And then of course, there's motherfucking Kingpin. Arguably the most popular character from the Netflix shows, the decision to bring Vincent Donofrio back as Wilson Fisk is a smart one. His presence in the MCU is incredibly exciting to me, and Donofrio does and excellent job once again, at filling the boots of one of Marvel's most intimidating villains. Welcome back sir.
There are plenty of exciting action set pieces sprinkled throughout (a car chase involving various trick arrows is a particular highlight) and the decision to keep Hawkeye firmly street level in its execution is a wise one. It allows New York City to feel like a character in it's own right, and the Christmas setting adds to that. It does feel like a proper holiday watch at times, and this is probably why the show feels so goofy on more than one occasion. I know that the MCU likes to keep the mood light for the most part, and is often found guilty of undercutting serious or epic moments with jokes. Hawkeye occasionally goes overboard with these moments, especially in the finale. It's not enough to derail what is an incredibly entertaining series, but it's a little frustrating.
Overall though, Hawkeye is another decent and fleshed out mini series in this sprawling franchise. The extra runtime of a season has ensured that all of the MCU shows this year have been high quality and worth watching. I just hope it's not too long until we get a Kate Bishop/Yelena reunion!