Search
Search results
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Last Samurai (2003) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
" I will tell you, how he lived"
The honour and code of the samurai has always been enticing to a Western civilisation that is far removed from such customs, which perhaps makes The Last Samurai such an enticing, enigmatic film. Edward Zwick crafts quite an epic adventure rich in mythology & thematic resonance that while traditionally Hollywood in its construction still manages to exist a cut above many such movies of its ilk, a touch of class surrounding how the story of Captain Nathan Algren is put together, based as it is on several real life legendary American figures who played key roles in the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan during the late 19th century. This isn't a direct re-telling of those events but serves as a leaping off point to construct a tale about a stranger in a strange land, of a man haunted by fighting an unjust war who rediscovers his honour & place in the world through a dying culture. Zwick's film is slick, sweeping, beautifully shot and frequently involving, backed up by a strong performance by Tom Cruise in one of those roles that remind you just what a good actor he can be.
In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.
Algren's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.
What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.
In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.
Algren's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.
What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
As average as you can get
The lacklustre box-office performance of Jack Reacher in 2012 seemed to scupper plans for the film to become the first in a new Tom Cruise-led action franchise to rival the likes of Mission Impossible and its mixed critical response only added to its woes.
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 9, 2021
A classic
Film #14 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Saving Private Ryan
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
When I think of war films, I immediately think of Saving Private Ryan. This is partly because I shamefully haven’t seen the majority of the older classic war films (but I may have done by the time I reach the end of this list), and also because this is the first war film I ever saw. I have my dad to thank for introducing me to this, he was obsessed with anything war related, and while I would never admit this to him as a teenager, even back then I could appreciate how brilliant this film was.
Saving Private Ryan is a 1998 World War II epic from Steven Spielberg that follows a group of soldiers as they embark on a mission across France to rescue a man who’s 3 brothers have been killed in action. It stars Tom Hanks as Captain Miller as he leads a host of recognisable faces including Vin Diesel (Caparzo), Barry Pepper (Jackson), Tom Sizemore (Horvath), Giovanni Ribisi (Wade), Edward Burns (Reiben) and Jeremy Davies as Upham as they trek across country to find Matt Damon’s Private Ryan.
The main plot is definitely very Hollywood, but the film itself looks and feels like anything but a glamorous Hollywood blockbuster. This is by far the grittiest, darkest and most horrific war film I’ve seen to date. Spielberg does not shy away from displaying the true horror of war, from the blood and gore of the fighting to the physical and psychological effects it had on the soldiers , it’s all here in all of its horrifying glory. One of the most memorable scenes of any war film is the opening sequence of the D-Day landings, that shows a haunting and frightfully bloody side of the war that no other films have managed to capture in such a dark and emotionally draining manner. Even the opening scene in Arlington Cemetery, especially when paired with a moving score from John Williams, is a tearjerker only a few minutes into the 2.5 hour runtime. I don’t know how factually realistic this whole film is, but it’s definitely one of the most compellingly believable films I’ve ever seen, especially the death scenes.
Visually the cinematography helps with the dark and gritty feeling. Everything looks grey and drab, even hazy at times, and this only helps to promote the overall tone of the film. Admittedly there are parts of this now that do look a little dated and there are a few early scenes with a strange out of place camera flare, but considering it was released 23 years ago, it’s aged pretty well and still looks quite good. It’s helped by a truly stellar cast lead by the ever brilliant Tom Hanks, who’s turn as Captain Miller is hauntingly good. The fact that he didn’t win the Oscar for his performance is criminal. Him alongside the rest of the cast, including memorably brash Brooklynite Reiben (Burns) and God-fearing elite sniper Jackson (Pepper), completely embody the camaraderie, friendship and sometimes hostility shown by the group of men perfectly. My only slight criticism of this film is that after growing to know and like these men over the course of the film, there is a question mark over some of their fates at the end which is a tiny bit disappointing.
Saving Private Ryan won 5 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Cinematography, but was nominated for many others including Best Picture, which in my opinion it deserved far more than the film that won in 1999 (Shakespeare in Love), as this is undoubtedly an all time classic war film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD’s time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Asteroid City (2023) in Movies
Jun 30, 2023
Too "Wes Anderson" For It's Own Good
If you watched the Oscar Nominated Wes Anderson film THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL back in 2014 and thought to yourself - “I want more of this type of thing - only turned up to 11”, then does the BankofMarquis have a film for you.
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.