Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The summer 2016 movie season has launched in a big way with Marvel Studios offering up the eagerly awaited “Captain America” Civil War” which once again stars Chris Evans and the title character.
The film is set in the aftermath of “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” where the governments of the world have grown fearful of the devastation that can be unleashed by their super-powered protectors and their enemies and devises a plan of action.
A law is introduced that requires heroes to register and be held accountable to governing bodies which for the most part would also control their activities.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), is still reeling from his part in the Ultron threat and the usually smug and cocky Iron Man is all in favor of the new legislation proposal.
Captain America/Steve Rogers on the other hand remembers the evils of making various groups register and answer to the government during World War II and he is very opposed to this new development.
As if this was not enough for the heroes to deal with, a villain named Crossbones (Frank Grillo) is causing trouble and then there is the matter of The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), which is like adding gasoline on a raging fire.
The Winter Soldier is blamed for a horrific tragedy and the forces of the world are poised to bring him to a final justice no matter the cost.
Rogers believes that his former friend can be saved and as such is willing to take great risks to do so. Stark and his supporters believe that The Winter Soldier is a threat that must be stopped at all costs. This combined with the already growing tensions over the new legislation divides the former allies and puts friends and allies at odds with one another.
The resulting backlash is a battle that threatens to destabilize those sworn to protect society and makes the world an even more dangerous and volatile place especially with an ever darker threat looming in the shadows.
The film does a great job mixing in intense action sequences that are visual effect spectacles, yet never losing the fact that is story powered by real characters with real issues.
The characters may be super powered, but they are dealing with real issues ranging from trust, loyalty, betrayal, and accountability in an ever changing world that seems to be caught in the crossfire of their heroic deeds.
The large ensemble cast works very well with one another and this is the key to making a film like this work. This is not simply pitting characters against one another in a conflict; this is a well-developed story that sets up future films very well but uses compelling and interesting characters with some timely humor to carry the film.
There are plenty of surprise moments in the film and Directors Anthony and Joe Russo proved that their last Captain America outing was no fluke, as they have delivered an action-packed and gripping film with some very mature content and themes set against some dazzling and intense action sequences which have become a trademark of the Marvel Film Franchise.
http://sknr.net/2016/05/03/captain-america-civil-war/
The film is set in the aftermath of “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” where the governments of the world have grown fearful of the devastation that can be unleashed by their super-powered protectors and their enemies and devises a plan of action.
A law is introduced that requires heroes to register and be held accountable to governing bodies which for the most part would also control their activities.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), is still reeling from his part in the Ultron threat and the usually smug and cocky Iron Man is all in favor of the new legislation proposal.
Captain America/Steve Rogers on the other hand remembers the evils of making various groups register and answer to the government during World War II and he is very opposed to this new development.
As if this was not enough for the heroes to deal with, a villain named Crossbones (Frank Grillo) is causing trouble and then there is the matter of The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), which is like adding gasoline on a raging fire.
The Winter Soldier is blamed for a horrific tragedy and the forces of the world are poised to bring him to a final justice no matter the cost.
Rogers believes that his former friend can be saved and as such is willing to take great risks to do so. Stark and his supporters believe that The Winter Soldier is a threat that must be stopped at all costs. This combined with the already growing tensions over the new legislation divides the former allies and puts friends and allies at odds with one another.
The resulting backlash is a battle that threatens to destabilize those sworn to protect society and makes the world an even more dangerous and volatile place especially with an ever darker threat looming in the shadows.
The film does a great job mixing in intense action sequences that are visual effect spectacles, yet never losing the fact that is story powered by real characters with real issues.
The characters may be super powered, but they are dealing with real issues ranging from trust, loyalty, betrayal, and accountability in an ever changing world that seems to be caught in the crossfire of their heroic deeds.
The large ensemble cast works very well with one another and this is the key to making a film like this work. This is not simply pitting characters against one another in a conflict; this is a well-developed story that sets up future films very well but uses compelling and interesting characters with some timely humor to carry the film.
There are plenty of surprise moments in the film and Directors Anthony and Joe Russo proved that their last Captain America outing was no fluke, as they have delivered an action-packed and gripping film with some very mature content and themes set against some dazzling and intense action sequences which have become a trademark of the Marvel Film Franchise.
http://sknr.net/2016/05/03/captain-america-civil-war/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in the early 1980s, a young boy who found himself without friends and tormented by bullies was about to have an unexpected and life-changing experience. Alone on his birthday, the young boy opens his one gift from his mom and is delighted to find a magic kit and instructional video by reknowned magician Lance Holloway (Alan Arkin). His early attempts at magic gain him a new friend and the two become inseparable through their love and practice of magic.
Flash forward, and the two friends are now all the rage in the world of magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell), and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi), have packed their theater night after night with a dazzling mix of music, showmanship, and magic. Not only does this keep their boss (James Gandolfini) happy, but it allows Burt to enjoy all of the perks of being a Las Vegas headliner: fame, fortune, and women.
Ten years later it’s a different story for the two friends. While they still have a very popular show, creative differences between the two have arisen and Burt has become a very pompous and self-centered individual. He treats those around him with utter disdain and has driven off numerous assistants due to his behavior. The latest to join his group is Jane (Olivia Wilde), whom Burt sees as nothing more than a person to assist on stage to make him look good, and to succumb to his charms after the show. When a new street magician named (Jim Carrey), starts to become garner attention with his new and shocking routines, Burt and Anton’s routine is suddenly looking very stale in comparison. Anton devises a new trick to be played out in public that he hopes will propel the duo to a fresh and hip image, but sadly things go horribly wrong and the best friends have a bitter falling out. Literally.
Burt attempts to go on with the show alone, but his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the fact that Anton was a big part of the show and that the act depends on both of them. With his career suddenly over and with no money, Burt hits rock bottom and must find a way to regain his former glory. In doing so he will have to reinvent himself and undergo a magical transformation of his own.
The movie is an absolute delight and is so much more enjoyable and funnier than the trailers imply. Carrell has pulled off his best movie since “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, and infuses Burt with a likeability and sense of wonder despite his narcissism. Buscemi and Arkin are great in their supporting roles and Carrey seems to be enjoying every minute of playing the film’s bad guy as he gives a performance that while restrained when compared to some of his more over the top roles works very well with the ensemble cast.
The film is an unexpected find as it is a comedy that does not pander to base humor to get laughs and instead uses situational comedy and the characters to tell a charming story sprinkled with some solid laughs along the way, especially in the final moments of the film.
http://sknr.net/2013/03/15/the-incredible-burt-wonderstone/
Flash forward, and the two friends are now all the rage in the world of magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell), and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi), have packed their theater night after night with a dazzling mix of music, showmanship, and magic. Not only does this keep their boss (James Gandolfini) happy, but it allows Burt to enjoy all of the perks of being a Las Vegas headliner: fame, fortune, and women.
Ten years later it’s a different story for the two friends. While they still have a very popular show, creative differences between the two have arisen and Burt has become a very pompous and self-centered individual. He treats those around him with utter disdain and has driven off numerous assistants due to his behavior. The latest to join his group is Jane (Olivia Wilde), whom Burt sees as nothing more than a person to assist on stage to make him look good, and to succumb to his charms after the show. When a new street magician named (Jim Carrey), starts to become garner attention with his new and shocking routines, Burt and Anton’s routine is suddenly looking very stale in comparison. Anton devises a new trick to be played out in public that he hopes will propel the duo to a fresh and hip image, but sadly things go horribly wrong and the best friends have a bitter falling out. Literally.
Burt attempts to go on with the show alone, but his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the fact that Anton was a big part of the show and that the act depends on both of them. With his career suddenly over and with no money, Burt hits rock bottom and must find a way to regain his former glory. In doing so he will have to reinvent himself and undergo a magical transformation of his own.
The movie is an absolute delight and is so much more enjoyable and funnier than the trailers imply. Carrell has pulled off his best movie since “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, and infuses Burt with a likeability and sense of wonder despite his narcissism. Buscemi and Arkin are great in their supporting roles and Carrey seems to be enjoying every minute of playing the film’s bad guy as he gives a performance that while restrained when compared to some of his more over the top roles works very well with the ensemble cast.
The film is an unexpected find as it is a comedy that does not pander to base humor to get laughs and instead uses situational comedy and the characters to tell a charming story sprinkled with some solid laughs along the way, especially in the final moments of the film.
http://sknr.net/2013/03/15/the-incredible-burt-wonderstone/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Don’t let the “big anime eyes” or unusual title fool you into thinking this will be a lame film. Yes, this movie is based off a manga you’ve probably never heard of. Yes, it is easy to dismiss this film as something that will bomb like last year’s Mortal Engines. But if you place your faith in director Robert Rodriguez and writer/producer James Cameron, you will be treated to a surprisingly solid narrative and fast paced visual spectacle that is worth the price of admission to view in the theater.
The biggest praise I can give to Alita: Battle Angel is that the visually stunning world they create on screen feels “lived in” and real. I found it easy to accept and understand the rules of that world they built and explained throughout film. And while we are not given a full history of their world, we are given enough explanation to understand how or why something existed in their world. This gives us the opportunity to focus on the story of “self-discovery” that Alita ultimately is.
Rosa Salazar motion capture performance of Alita is excellent. Not only in movement but in emotionally delivery. You get the real sense of discovery with this amazing world that Alita is being exposed to. Additionally, as she begins to become more self-aware of who she is, you can understand the emotion and she struggles with love, trust and obligation. Furthermore, from a technical standpoint, by the end of the movie, I was not thinking of Alita being something that is motion captured and instead just accepted her as part of this onscreen world they delivered. This is really something that becomes make or break with this film for some people and it’s easy to dismiss it based on the trailers. However in context of the film, it works and does a good job drawing you in.
In addition to Alita, we are given strong performances from the ensemble cast of characters in the film. Christoph Waltz play’s Alita surrogate father Dr. Dyson Ido, Keean Johnson as the street smart and resourceful Hugo, Mahershala Ali as the gangster type gate keeper Vector, Jennifer Connelly as the morally ambiguous goal focused scientist and Ed Skrein as the cocky bounty hunter. Each of these characters play their roles well and help usher in the different levels of the society they live in. Perhaps the once complaint I have of this film is that the pacing of this film is so fast that we miss an opportunity to obtain a bit more backstory from some of these characters. It is not a big loss, but it makes you wonder if this film would have been better served as a 10 episode Netflix series or something of that nature.
In the end, I found myself enjoying this film more than I expected I would. Is it a perfect film? No. Nor does it invoke emotionally deep existential thought that the manga it is based on provides. But it does tell a sold story of self-discovery in a visually stunning and fully realized world. It is fun, fast paced and something that should be seen in the theaters. And if possible, do yourself a favor and watch it in 3D. This film has some of the best 3D effects since Avatar. The 3D doesn’t feel like an afterthought or gimmicky, but instead works to enhance the on screen world.
The biggest praise I can give to Alita: Battle Angel is that the visually stunning world they create on screen feels “lived in” and real. I found it easy to accept and understand the rules of that world they built and explained throughout film. And while we are not given a full history of their world, we are given enough explanation to understand how or why something existed in their world. This gives us the opportunity to focus on the story of “self-discovery” that Alita ultimately is.
Rosa Salazar motion capture performance of Alita is excellent. Not only in movement but in emotionally delivery. You get the real sense of discovery with this amazing world that Alita is being exposed to. Additionally, as she begins to become more self-aware of who she is, you can understand the emotion and she struggles with love, trust and obligation. Furthermore, from a technical standpoint, by the end of the movie, I was not thinking of Alita being something that is motion captured and instead just accepted her as part of this onscreen world they delivered. This is really something that becomes make or break with this film for some people and it’s easy to dismiss it based on the trailers. However in context of the film, it works and does a good job drawing you in.
In addition to Alita, we are given strong performances from the ensemble cast of characters in the film. Christoph Waltz play’s Alita surrogate father Dr. Dyson Ido, Keean Johnson as the street smart and resourceful Hugo, Mahershala Ali as the gangster type gate keeper Vector, Jennifer Connelly as the morally ambiguous goal focused scientist and Ed Skrein as the cocky bounty hunter. Each of these characters play their roles well and help usher in the different levels of the society they live in. Perhaps the once complaint I have of this film is that the pacing of this film is so fast that we miss an opportunity to obtain a bit more backstory from some of these characters. It is not a big loss, but it makes you wonder if this film would have been better served as a 10 episode Netflix series or something of that nature.
In the end, I found myself enjoying this film more than I expected I would. Is it a perfect film? No. Nor does it invoke emotionally deep existential thought that the manga it is based on provides. But it does tell a sold story of self-discovery in a visually stunning and fully realized world. It is fun, fast paced and something that should be seen in the theaters. And if possible, do yourself a favor and watch it in 3D. This film has some of the best 3D effects since Avatar. The 3D doesn’t feel like an afterthought or gimmicky, but instead works to enhance the on screen world.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
At the end of the 1984 Democratic Primaries a relative unknown Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman), concedes victory to Walter Mondale. But being the runner up to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee catapults Hart to the national stage. Fast forward to 1988 and Hart is the overwhelming front runner to be not only the Democratic nominee but most likely the next President of the United States. He is a progressive and has a knack for explaining politics so that everyone can understand. He’s well spoken, has popular policies, a clear message for the future and is a handsome man to boot. It seems like nothing can stand in his way. That is until three weeks into the primary elections reporters from the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis) and Pete Murphy (Bill Burr), get wind of a story of Hart and a young woman from Miami spending time together at yacht party. Since Hart is very much married to his wife, Lee Hart (Vera Farmiga), they decide to investigate. They find out that the two may be meeting in Washington D.C. at Hart’s townhouse. They follow the young woman, Donna Rice (Sara Paxton), from Miami to D.C. There they take photos of the two together and print a story. The media blitz is on and the story explodes. Hart now faces one of the first personal political scandals. He must try and navigate a new media age to not see his political career slip away.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Data Mining for Business Analytics: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications with JMP Pro
Galit Shmueli, Nitin R. Patel, Peter C. Bruce and Mia L. Stephens
Book
Data Mining for Business Analytics: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications with JMP Pro(R) presents...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Twist (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021
I'm not sure what grabbed me about this one to make me watch... probably the cast. When will I learn?
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Firstly, and slightly off topic, I wanted to mention the actual event of this being released. The sheer volume of screenings was amazing and I would be really interested in knowing how many people attended at my cinema. The other thing that amused me was what I would consider to be really stereotypical advertising. Most of the audience when I went were younger than me so I'm not sure that Cunnard and health related advertising was really their sort of thing (I did appreciate the back pain tip though.)
Despite having never seen a full episode of Downton I still enjoyed the film, they did (what felt like) an incredibly good job of filling in the blanks in the backstory. I'm sure there were still bits missing but I was certainly handed enough to understand everything that what going on.
The other thing that was a great benefit to the film was the fact that everyone had been acting these parts, and with each other, for years. The interactions were great and the ensemble made for a brilliant production. I'm not going to go into the individual main actors, it seems a little redundant considering how well established the Downton world is. All the actors brought a great feeling of history to their roles and I can't argue with their success.
All this praise can't go on forever though, I did have some issues with the storyline. The main arc seemed to work well but some of the smaller threads left me shrugging. We have Tom who is sought out by a gentleman played by Stephen Campbell Moore. This part was rather fleeting, and that perplexed me. Trying to avoid spoilers... if I told someone this part of the story out of context combined with the description of the film I would expect them to think it was a major part of the film, and not just something that goes as quickly as it arrived. Then we have Barrow (I really hope I've got that character name right), he has his own little story that plays alongside the main one as we see him put out during the tensions at Downton. I don't object to this storyline, but I don't see that it made any impact on the rest of the film, there was certainly nothing in it that couldn't have been achieved in the main setting. All it really did was give him somewhere to go that wasn't the house.
I was very aware throughout that this "film" felt like a Christmas special. There were a lot of bits to it that were left open and didn't tie together at the end... which is exactly how you'd expect a series to end to lead into another. I came out wondering if I'd missed something about a new series. I probably would have been happier having seen this as a TV special... although I obviously wouldn't have seen it had it been on TV because I don't watch the series. The whole thing has a very homely feel to it which I just don't think works in a cinema setting. That being said, I did enjoy myself and I'm sure that fans of the series would have enjoyed it more than I did.
Read the full review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/downton-abbey-movie-review.html
Despite having never seen a full episode of Downton I still enjoyed the film, they did (what felt like) an incredibly good job of filling in the blanks in the backstory. I'm sure there were still bits missing but I was certainly handed enough to understand everything that what going on.
The other thing that was a great benefit to the film was the fact that everyone had been acting these parts, and with each other, for years. The interactions were great and the ensemble made for a brilliant production. I'm not going to go into the individual main actors, it seems a little redundant considering how well established the Downton world is. All the actors brought a great feeling of history to their roles and I can't argue with their success.
All this praise can't go on forever though, I did have some issues with the storyline. The main arc seemed to work well but some of the smaller threads left me shrugging. We have Tom who is sought out by a gentleman played by Stephen Campbell Moore. This part was rather fleeting, and that perplexed me. Trying to avoid spoilers... if I told someone this part of the story out of context combined with the description of the film I would expect them to think it was a major part of the film, and not just something that goes as quickly as it arrived. Then we have Barrow (I really hope I've got that character name right), he has his own little story that plays alongside the main one as we see him put out during the tensions at Downton. I don't object to this storyline, but I don't see that it made any impact on the rest of the film, there was certainly nothing in it that couldn't have been achieved in the main setting. All it really did was give him somewhere to go that wasn't the house.
I was very aware throughout that this "film" felt like a Christmas special. There were a lot of bits to it that were left open and didn't tie together at the end... which is exactly how you'd expect a series to end to lead into another. I came out wondering if I'd missed something about a new series. I probably would have been happier having seen this as a TV special... although I obviously wouldn't have seen it had it been on TV because I don't watch the series. The whole thing has a very homely feel to it which I just don't think works in a cinema setting. That being said, I did enjoy myself and I'm sure that fans of the series would have enjoyed it more than I did.
Read the full review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/downton-abbey-movie-review.html