Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is your typical jarhead from the military other than the fact that he doesn't have the use of his legs, but him being in a wheelchair doesn't seem to slow him down at all. Jake is the type of soldier to shoot first and ask questions later while his twin brother was more of the scientific type, but Jake's life takes an unexpected turn when his brother is killed. Jake is asked to step into his brother's shoes, so to speak, and take his spot in the Avatar project. The project requires him to travel to Pandora, a planet that takes nearly six years to get to, and to try to learn the ways of the natives there, the Na'vi.
Incredible technology has been developed that enables users to transfer their human essence into the body of a Na'vi avatar that they've raised from a DNA injected fetus and transfer back again. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) runs the project currently taking place on Pandora, who is after a resource known as unobtanium that could be the answer to the energy crisis back on Earth. A sacred tree that acts as the Na'vi's central base rests on top of the largest unobtanium deposits in Pandora. When Jake begins being trusted by the Na'vi race, a deal is made that he'll get his legs back if he can somehow convince the Na'vi people to leave. However, Jake begins to realize how spectacular their world really is, that the Na'vi people are more than just "blue monkeys," and begins to feel like his time in the avatar body is more genuine than when he wakes up. He begins to wonder if he's fighting for the wrong side.
The first feature film from director James Cameron (director of the first two Terminator films, Aliens, and Titanic) in 12 years that promised some of the most groundbreaking special effects to ever hit the screen is finally here. This film's ad campaign has been insane with clips and behind the scenes featurettes showing up online left and right while TV spots were nearly on every major channel. Is there any way a film could live up this kind of hype? The short answer is yes.
Avatar starts off rather slowly with the main human characters and the world of Pandora being introduced to us. Then there's the technology on the human side that needs its fair amount of screen time. Needless to say, it takes a good while for things to really get rolling. Character development is never a bad thing to accomplish early on. It makes it that much easier to establish an emotional connection when things get rough later on, which is exactly what this film does. Plus, when the war finally does happen, it's well worth the wait. Although, the emotional connection didn't seem as strong as it should have been or as strong as previous Cameron films. Once things took a turn for the worst, the emotions were there but it just seemed like it should have had a stronger connection given the duration of the film along with the time, effort, and money put into making this film as great as it is.
The special effects are pretty mind blowing. James Cameron has practically given life to this extravagant world and the marvelous creatures that inhabit it. The majority of the film looks realistic even though nearly every scene relies heavily on CGI. A feat not many CGI-heavy films have been able to pull off and none to the extent that this film has. There's a scene where Jake is attacked by a group of viperwolves and another scene where Jake learns to ride a direhorse that look incredibly genuine. To make something like people with blue skin or a horse that has an anteater head with six legs look real is an accomplishment worth being proud of. The technology used in the film by the humans is pulled off so flawlessly that it seems like it could come to fruition in the real world tomorrow.
Sam Worthington continues his trend of exceptional performances, as well. While Zoey Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, and Joel David Moore all have their shining moments, Worthington steals the spotlight and rightfully so since he's the lead. His dry humor and struggle to do what's right are one of the most enjoyable factors in watching the film (other than the special effects, of course). Worthington was really the only redeeming factor of Terminator: Salvation and looks to put in another strong performance in next year's Clash of the Titans.
While the film has superb action sequences (the thanator chase and leonopteryx chase were amazing in IMAX), nearly flawless CGI, and strong performances from the cast, the film still had its flaws. The story is probably the weakest aspect of the film. It's pretty thin and predictable, but that is probably the last thing on the minds of most of the moviegoing audience. With South Park mocking the film last month by calling the film, "Dances With Smurfs," and the film being called, "Dances With Wolves in space," nearly all across the net, the similarities of those two comparisons are certainly there. While the Smurf one is a bit of a stretch, Dances With Wolves in space seems almost accurate as a nutshell review. The nearly three hour duration may also be a factor for some while 3D and IMAX versions of the film may be a problem for those who had problems with a film like Cloverfield. Seeing the film in IMAX, going back for future viewings of the film in 3D and 2D seems like a good idea just to compare since the IMAX version didn't feel like the definitive version. Would it have the same effect in digital 3D showings? What about regular showings? Shelling out $15 when you could spend half of that is something to take into consideration when seeing a film that was sold out nearly its entire opening weekend.
James Cameron's Avatar was well worth the wait and certainly lives up to the hype. Its special effects are certainly the best to be featured in any film to date as these vibrant creatures nearly jump to life because of the effects alone. The performances are top notch and the action sequences certainly live up to James Cameron's reputation. Despite all this, the emotional connection between the audience and the characters didn't seem quite as strong as some of the other films this year. Up, Where the Wild Things Are, and even Moon were able to establish a stronger connection. So while the film is exceptional, it isn’t the best film of 2009 which is probably a shock to some.
Incredible technology has been developed that enables users to transfer their human essence into the body of a Na'vi avatar that they've raised from a DNA injected fetus and transfer back again. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) runs the project currently taking place on Pandora, who is after a resource known as unobtanium that could be the answer to the energy crisis back on Earth. A sacred tree that acts as the Na'vi's central base rests on top of the largest unobtanium deposits in Pandora. When Jake begins being trusted by the Na'vi race, a deal is made that he'll get his legs back if he can somehow convince the Na'vi people to leave. However, Jake begins to realize how spectacular their world really is, that the Na'vi people are more than just "blue monkeys," and begins to feel like his time in the avatar body is more genuine than when he wakes up. He begins to wonder if he's fighting for the wrong side.
The first feature film from director James Cameron (director of the first two Terminator films, Aliens, and Titanic) in 12 years that promised some of the most groundbreaking special effects to ever hit the screen is finally here. This film's ad campaign has been insane with clips and behind the scenes featurettes showing up online left and right while TV spots were nearly on every major channel. Is there any way a film could live up this kind of hype? The short answer is yes.
Avatar starts off rather slowly with the main human characters and the world of Pandora being introduced to us. Then there's the technology on the human side that needs its fair amount of screen time. Needless to say, it takes a good while for things to really get rolling. Character development is never a bad thing to accomplish early on. It makes it that much easier to establish an emotional connection when things get rough later on, which is exactly what this film does. Plus, when the war finally does happen, it's well worth the wait. Although, the emotional connection didn't seem as strong as it should have been or as strong as previous Cameron films. Once things took a turn for the worst, the emotions were there but it just seemed like it should have had a stronger connection given the duration of the film along with the time, effort, and money put into making this film as great as it is.
The special effects are pretty mind blowing. James Cameron has practically given life to this extravagant world and the marvelous creatures that inhabit it. The majority of the film looks realistic even though nearly every scene relies heavily on CGI. A feat not many CGI-heavy films have been able to pull off and none to the extent that this film has. There's a scene where Jake is attacked by a group of viperwolves and another scene where Jake learns to ride a direhorse that look incredibly genuine. To make something like people with blue skin or a horse that has an anteater head with six legs look real is an accomplishment worth being proud of. The technology used in the film by the humans is pulled off so flawlessly that it seems like it could come to fruition in the real world tomorrow.
Sam Worthington continues his trend of exceptional performances, as well. While Zoey Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, and Joel David Moore all have their shining moments, Worthington steals the spotlight and rightfully so since he's the lead. His dry humor and struggle to do what's right are one of the most enjoyable factors in watching the film (other than the special effects, of course). Worthington was really the only redeeming factor of Terminator: Salvation and looks to put in another strong performance in next year's Clash of the Titans.
While the film has superb action sequences (the thanator chase and leonopteryx chase were amazing in IMAX), nearly flawless CGI, and strong performances from the cast, the film still had its flaws. The story is probably the weakest aspect of the film. It's pretty thin and predictable, but that is probably the last thing on the minds of most of the moviegoing audience. With South Park mocking the film last month by calling the film, "Dances With Smurfs," and the film being called, "Dances With Wolves in space," nearly all across the net, the similarities of those two comparisons are certainly there. While the Smurf one is a bit of a stretch, Dances With Wolves in space seems almost accurate as a nutshell review. The nearly three hour duration may also be a factor for some while 3D and IMAX versions of the film may be a problem for those who had problems with a film like Cloverfield. Seeing the film in IMAX, going back for future viewings of the film in 3D and 2D seems like a good idea just to compare since the IMAX version didn't feel like the definitive version. Would it have the same effect in digital 3D showings? What about regular showings? Shelling out $15 when you could spend half of that is something to take into consideration when seeing a film that was sold out nearly its entire opening weekend.
James Cameron's Avatar was well worth the wait and certainly lives up to the hype. Its special effects are certainly the best to be featured in any film to date as these vibrant creatures nearly jump to life because of the effects alone. The performances are top notch and the action sequences certainly live up to James Cameron's reputation. Despite all this, the emotional connection between the audience and the characters didn't seem quite as strong as some of the other films this year. Up, Where the Wild Things Are, and even Moon were able to establish a stronger connection. So while the film is exceptional, it isn’t the best film of 2009 which is probably a shock to some.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Untied Kingdom starts in 1947 England where Prince Seretse Khama (Oyelowo) of Bechuanaland (known today as Botswana) is in England studying law, he meets file clerk Ruth Williams (Pike) and the two fall in love.
With tension between Bechuanaland and South Africa high the idea of the soon to be King marrying a white woman would be unheard off. The British government doesn’t want him to become king and Seretse own family don’t want him to become king if he stays with Ruth. With the racial divide still going strong, Seretse pushed for equality over anything else, so he can unite his kingdom when he becomes king.
Thoughts on A United Kingdom
Characters – Seretse Khama is the prince of Bechuanaland he has been studying law in England to prepare for his time as king, he falls in love a white woman in Ruth Williams which throws tensions from his family, government in the air and to prove his love is more important than his traditions and bring the equality between the races together. Ruth Williams is an English clerk whose family has been working to teach Christianity to Africans, she meets and falls in love with Seretse and goes against everyone else’s desires and marries him. Rufus Lancaster is the British liaison in Bechuanaland who leads the opposition from the land, which only shows us just how the English were over controlling.
Performances – David Oyelowo is wonderful in the leading role, showing us once again that he can lead any movie he wants too. Rosamund Pike shines to showing everyone that she can handle to calm roles after the psycho ones in Gone Girl. The rest of the cast are wonderful even if the British characters are as stuck up as you would imagine them to be.
Story – The story follows the lives of King Seretse who marries an English white woman which puts the balance between the racial tension in his home land and British rule. We learn a lot from this movie, because we see how the country was being controlled from outside forces that only saw them as a piece of land. There is a lot to take in and the history lesson about this union that created a chance in the land.
Biopic/Romance – What King Seretse and his wife Ruth achieved for Botswana was incredible and this shows us how their love drove them to achieve this change.
Settings – The settings show us the high society British look at an African country that was following its own traditions to become the independent from this style of rule.
Scene of the Movie – Speech to the ‘tribe’ as the British called them.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Knowing the English were this shallow.
Final Thoughts – This is a good look at how the world was once ruled by people who believe they are in the right to control countries affairs and how their union would change everything.
Overall: History is always worth learning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/21/abc-film-challenge-biopics-u-a-united-kingdom-2016/
With tension between Bechuanaland and South Africa high the idea of the soon to be King marrying a white woman would be unheard off. The British government doesn’t want him to become king and Seretse own family don’t want him to become king if he stays with Ruth. With the racial divide still going strong, Seretse pushed for equality over anything else, so he can unite his kingdom when he becomes king.
Thoughts on A United Kingdom
Characters – Seretse Khama is the prince of Bechuanaland he has been studying law in England to prepare for his time as king, he falls in love a white woman in Ruth Williams which throws tensions from his family, government in the air and to prove his love is more important than his traditions and bring the equality between the races together. Ruth Williams is an English clerk whose family has been working to teach Christianity to Africans, she meets and falls in love with Seretse and goes against everyone else’s desires and marries him. Rufus Lancaster is the British liaison in Bechuanaland who leads the opposition from the land, which only shows us just how the English were over controlling.
Performances – David Oyelowo is wonderful in the leading role, showing us once again that he can lead any movie he wants too. Rosamund Pike shines to showing everyone that she can handle to calm roles after the psycho ones in Gone Girl. The rest of the cast are wonderful even if the British characters are as stuck up as you would imagine them to be.
Story – The story follows the lives of King Seretse who marries an English white woman which puts the balance between the racial tension in his home land and British rule. We learn a lot from this movie, because we see how the country was being controlled from outside forces that only saw them as a piece of land. There is a lot to take in and the history lesson about this union that created a chance in the land.
Biopic/Romance – What King Seretse and his wife Ruth achieved for Botswana was incredible and this shows us how their love drove them to achieve this change.
Settings – The settings show us the high society British look at an African country that was following its own traditions to become the independent from this style of rule.
Scene of the Movie – Speech to the ‘tribe’ as the British called them.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Knowing the English were this shallow.
Final Thoughts – This is a good look at how the world was once ruled by people who believe they are in the right to control countries affairs and how their union would change everything.
Overall: History is always worth learning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/21/abc-film-challenge-biopics-u-a-united-kingdom-2016/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Brightburn is a mostly solid 'superhero' horror that sets out what it means to do. The narrative plays out a bit like an issue of Marvel's What If? - in this case, what if an alien baby crashed to earth, much like Superman, but grew up to be a danger to mankind.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Legend (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Have you heard of Legend? Not the movie from the mid-eighties, but the story of Ronnie and Reggie Kray (Tom Hardy, playing both brothers). Don’t know who they are, that’s okay, neither did I. But if you are across the pond and are reading this, you probably do. They Kray brothers are twins, and perhaps the most notorious gangsters in London history. Think John Dillinger, or Al Capone, of the UK.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Debbiereadsbook (1102 KP) rated Bondage Rescue (Kiss of Leather #3) in Books
Apr 24, 2018
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Independent review for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hard Candy (2005) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Solid Movie
Hardy Candy is as good as it is unsettling. There is an art in movies to making you feel creeped out and director David Slade definitely pulls it off here. I don’t really want to disclose too much of the plot in fear of giving it away for those that haven’t seen it, but I will say that it starts with a teenager meeting a thirty-something year-old in a chat room and agreeing to meet him in person. I definitely wasn’t expecting or ready for what happened next.
Acting: 10
Ellen Page plays the role of the aforementioned teenager Hayley Stark. In a word: Fantastic. I can almost imagine a role of this nature being somewhat freeing and therapeutic. I love the angle that she took as Hayley, calm on the surface but a loose cannon ready to explode. The emotional range here is noticed and appreciated.
Shout-out to Patrick Wilson playing the role of Jeff Kohlver the thirty-something. He, just like Page, excels in playing a multi-dimensional character that has that “other” side. Seeing the two work on screen together is like magic.
Beginning; 10
Characters: 9
The story centers around Hayley and Patrick but, in a way, one could argue that the movie is about four people: Their characters and the ones underneath the surface. The way they play off of each other is fascinating. You want to see more of them, know more about what got them to this point. It’s a cat-and-mouse game and you don’t quite know who’s who.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Colors and tones play a significant role in setting the mood of the movie. Again, it’s that eery creepiness Slade manages to capture in every shot, even when things feel normal. Emotional moments are captured in a way that manage to magnify the way a viewer feels. That’s where I feel the visuals succeed the most. On the downside, it got somewhat monotonous having the characters be in one location for the majority of the movie. Maybe breaking it up with flashbacks or something would have made the pill a little easier to swallow.
Conflict: 4
Let’s just say I was expecting a lot more to happen than what actually did. In other words, there was DEFINITELY room for more conflict here. Just slightly more subtle than I was hoping for.
Genre: 5
This score would have been higher had there been just a bit more action and a fluctuation of location changes. While it checks most boxes for what makes a quality movie, I have seen better dramas that are worth the higher score.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Sometimes intensity can magnify a situation and that’s one of a number of things Hard Candy is great at. Because you’re dealing with two characters that are loaded pistols, you don’t really know what’s going to unfold from one scene to the next. That’s ultimately what makes the movie so fun to watch. There is always something to pay attention to here.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 83
Hard Candy is a great example of why I created my scoring system in the first place. Some movies slip in some areas and they get called a bad movie as a result. When you look at all the moving parts separately, however, you potentially learn the opposite. Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. Is it a solid, fun movie to watch. Absolutely.
Acting: 10
Ellen Page plays the role of the aforementioned teenager Hayley Stark. In a word: Fantastic. I can almost imagine a role of this nature being somewhat freeing and therapeutic. I love the angle that she took as Hayley, calm on the surface but a loose cannon ready to explode. The emotional range here is noticed and appreciated.
Shout-out to Patrick Wilson playing the role of Jeff Kohlver the thirty-something. He, just like Page, excels in playing a multi-dimensional character that has that “other” side. Seeing the two work on screen together is like magic.
Beginning; 10
Characters: 9
The story centers around Hayley and Patrick but, in a way, one could argue that the movie is about four people: Their characters and the ones underneath the surface. The way they play off of each other is fascinating. You want to see more of them, know more about what got them to this point. It’s a cat-and-mouse game and you don’t quite know who’s who.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Colors and tones play a significant role in setting the mood of the movie. Again, it’s that eery creepiness Slade manages to capture in every shot, even when things feel normal. Emotional moments are captured in a way that manage to magnify the way a viewer feels. That’s where I feel the visuals succeed the most. On the downside, it got somewhat monotonous having the characters be in one location for the majority of the movie. Maybe breaking it up with flashbacks or something would have made the pill a little easier to swallow.
Conflict: 4
Let’s just say I was expecting a lot more to happen than what actually did. In other words, there was DEFINITELY room for more conflict here. Just slightly more subtle than I was hoping for.
Genre: 5
This score would have been higher had there been just a bit more action and a fluctuation of location changes. While it checks most boxes for what makes a quality movie, I have seen better dramas that are worth the higher score.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Sometimes intensity can magnify a situation and that’s one of a number of things Hard Candy is great at. Because you’re dealing with two characters that are loaded pistols, you don’t really know what’s going to unfold from one scene to the next. That’s ultimately what makes the movie so fun to watch. There is always something to pay attention to here.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 83
Hard Candy is a great example of why I created my scoring system in the first place. Some movies slip in some areas and they get called a bad movie as a result. When you look at all the moving parts separately, however, you potentially learn the opposite. Is it a perfect movie? Not at all. Is it a solid, fun movie to watch. Absolutely.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
No, not that one
Nordic noir is big business at the moment, but with the incredible scenery of the locations lending themselves perfectly to film, is there any wonder?
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mad To Be Normal (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Mental Health in the 60s
I’ll admit, whenever I see David Tennant’s name on a cast list I get excited. As a long time fan, I’ve watched him play a variety of roles brilliantly. So when I was given the opportunity to review Mad To Be Normal and I learned what the plot was, how could I refuse? Set in the 60s, the film follows Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his unconventional approach to mental health treatment, causing controversy within the psychiatry field.
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 16 Blocks (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
A burnt out cop with a bad limp and a taste for the bottle has just finished his shift and is looking forward to heading home for some rest. Sadly for Detective Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis), his day is about to get much longer than he expected.
On his way out of the precinct, his Lieutenant tasks him to escort a prisoner named Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), 16 blocks in 90 minutes so he can testify before a jury. Since the jury will disband in 90 minutes, it is vital that Eddie appear before them or else months of work in a prime case will be lost.
Jack is less than thrilled to be stuck with Eddie as his high voice and rapid fire style of speech really annoy Jack, who decides to take a detour from the non stop rants of Eddie to purchase a bottle of alcohol so he can drown his sorrows.
No sooner does Jack complete his purchase at a favorite store than an attempt is made on Eddie by armed men forcing Jack and Eddie to flee on foot and take refuge in a local bar where they are soon met by detective Frank Nugent (David Morse), who said he was in the area and responded to Jack’s call for assistance.
Frank informs his former partner Jack that he is escorting a snitch who is about to give evidence that will implicate many cops who were simply doing business. Frank suggests that Jack head home and rest while he cleans up the problem by taking charge of Eddie.
When Jack learns that Frank and his associates intend to kill Eddie to keep him from testifying, Jack decides to defend Eddie and the two of them begin a deadly race against the clock as they attempt to not only get Eddie to the courthouse in time, but to simply stay alive against a cadre of corrupt cops.
Since he went up against fellow cops, Jack is reported as a rogue who turned on fellow officers, which leaves him with nowhere to turn and without backup as he attempt to stay one step ahead of the relentless Frank and his associates as they venture from one city block to another in order to stay alive. Along the way, the two men bond, and Jack begins to learn that what Eddie knows will get them all killed and that in a city the size of New York, there are precious few places to hide, when people are determined to find you.
The solid pacing of the film and the quality work by Morse, Willis, and Mos Def keeps 16 Blocks an entertaining and engaging film. The chemistry amongst the leads draws you in more than most typical action dramas do, as you find yourself caring about the two individuals and want them to succeed.
Director Richard Donner has dialed down his usual explosions but has not sacrificed the action as it is always appropriate to the story and never seems tacked on. The film does loose some steam towards the end but does ultimately arrive at a conclusion that makes the trip worthwhile.
The film does borrow in parts from the classic Clint Eastwood film “The Gauntlet”. Even down to the heroes taking refuge in a city bus and attempted to evade the police in the bus amidst an armada of armed officers who are looking to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you are a fan of Willis or Mos Def and like action dramas, then 16 Blocks is a trip well worth taking.
On his way out of the precinct, his Lieutenant tasks him to escort a prisoner named Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), 16 blocks in 90 minutes so he can testify before a jury. Since the jury will disband in 90 minutes, it is vital that Eddie appear before them or else months of work in a prime case will be lost.
Jack is less than thrilled to be stuck with Eddie as his high voice and rapid fire style of speech really annoy Jack, who decides to take a detour from the non stop rants of Eddie to purchase a bottle of alcohol so he can drown his sorrows.
No sooner does Jack complete his purchase at a favorite store than an attempt is made on Eddie by armed men forcing Jack and Eddie to flee on foot and take refuge in a local bar where they are soon met by detective Frank Nugent (David Morse), who said he was in the area and responded to Jack’s call for assistance.
Frank informs his former partner Jack that he is escorting a snitch who is about to give evidence that will implicate many cops who were simply doing business. Frank suggests that Jack head home and rest while he cleans up the problem by taking charge of Eddie.
When Jack learns that Frank and his associates intend to kill Eddie to keep him from testifying, Jack decides to defend Eddie and the two of them begin a deadly race against the clock as they attempt to not only get Eddie to the courthouse in time, but to simply stay alive against a cadre of corrupt cops.
Since he went up against fellow cops, Jack is reported as a rogue who turned on fellow officers, which leaves him with nowhere to turn and without backup as he attempt to stay one step ahead of the relentless Frank and his associates as they venture from one city block to another in order to stay alive. Along the way, the two men bond, and Jack begins to learn that what Eddie knows will get them all killed and that in a city the size of New York, there are precious few places to hide, when people are determined to find you.
The solid pacing of the film and the quality work by Morse, Willis, and Mos Def keeps 16 Blocks an entertaining and engaging film. The chemistry amongst the leads draws you in more than most typical action dramas do, as you find yourself caring about the two individuals and want them to succeed.
Director Richard Donner has dialed down his usual explosions but has not sacrificed the action as it is always appropriate to the story and never seems tacked on. The film does loose some steam towards the end but does ultimately arrive at a conclusion that makes the trip worthwhile.
The film does borrow in parts from the classic Clint Eastwood film “The Gauntlet”. Even down to the heroes taking refuge in a city bus and attempted to evade the police in the bus amidst an armada of armed officers who are looking to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you are a fan of Willis or Mos Def and like action dramas, then 16 Blocks is a trip well worth taking.