Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jan 8, 2019
Hugh Jackman (1 more)
J.K. Simmons
Enjoyable, great performances from all
I don't really follow, or know very much about American politics. Trying to cope with whatever Brexit nonsense is happening here in the UK on a daily basis is more than enough for me, so aside from face palming at whatever rubbish Donald Trump is currently spewing on Twitter, I'm fairly oblivious to it all. Back in 1988, I would have more likely been playing Super Mario World, than taking interest in former Colorado senator Gary Hart, who became the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. So why then would I be interested in watching a movie about him and the scandal he became involved in so close to achieving his dream of presidency? Well, when the movie stars versatile man of the moment Hugh Jackman as Gary Hart, along with another two of my favourite actors (Vera Farmiga and J.K. Simmons), then I'm more than happy to give it a shot!
The movie opens with Hart currently riding high, with only three weeks to go until the nomination. He's a very charismatic man, intelligent, and clearly striking a chord with the voters. His path to the White House seems clear and certain. But, as the opening on-screen titles remind us, a lot can happen in three weeks...
Those three weeks, for the most part, run pretty smoothly, giving us a chance to get to know Hart and the vast number of supporting characters as the campaign progresses through its final stages. J.K. Simmons is campaign manager Bill Dixon, brilliant and often hilarious in every scene he's in. Vera Farmiga plays Harts wife Lee, slightly underused in the role of supportive wife placed in a difficult position. Elsewhere, there are plenty of strong supporting characters, both throughout the campaign team and within the news teams that are tasked with following Hart around the country. One of those reporters eventually gets wind of a potential story, although he initially doesn't believe the young nervous girl phoning his office one night, telling him about her friend who is due to go and meet with Hart at the weekend. A last minute change in Harts schedule for the weekend leads the reporter to suspect there may be some truth to the phone call and he follows up on the lead, staking out Harts townhouse in a bid to get some dirt on him.
When the dirt does start to come out, Hart attempts to brush it aside. We've already seen what a private man he is, baffled as to why anyone would want to see him posing for photos with his family in People magazine. He believes that his policies and the politician that he is are all that matters, and that the public aren't interested in his private life at all, so all of this will just blow over. His staff rally round to try and contain the story and work out what to do with the woman involved in the scandal, while Harts wife and daughter deal with the fallout back home. All the while, the reporters and TV are having a field day. Every part of the story is interesting, and the characters involved are all superb. What always helps a movie like this though is when it is based on true events and what helps it even more is the fantastic cast, who all do a brilliant job at making this a very enjoyable movie.
The movie opens with Hart currently riding high, with only three weeks to go until the nomination. He's a very charismatic man, intelligent, and clearly striking a chord with the voters. His path to the White House seems clear and certain. But, as the opening on-screen titles remind us, a lot can happen in three weeks...
Those three weeks, for the most part, run pretty smoothly, giving us a chance to get to know Hart and the vast number of supporting characters as the campaign progresses through its final stages. J.K. Simmons is campaign manager Bill Dixon, brilliant and often hilarious in every scene he's in. Vera Farmiga plays Harts wife Lee, slightly underused in the role of supportive wife placed in a difficult position. Elsewhere, there are plenty of strong supporting characters, both throughout the campaign team and within the news teams that are tasked with following Hart around the country. One of those reporters eventually gets wind of a potential story, although he initially doesn't believe the young nervous girl phoning his office one night, telling him about her friend who is due to go and meet with Hart at the weekend. A last minute change in Harts schedule for the weekend leads the reporter to suspect there may be some truth to the phone call and he follows up on the lead, staking out Harts townhouse in a bid to get some dirt on him.
When the dirt does start to come out, Hart attempts to brush it aside. We've already seen what a private man he is, baffled as to why anyone would want to see him posing for photos with his family in People magazine. He believes that his policies and the politician that he is are all that matters, and that the public aren't interested in his private life at all, so all of this will just blow over. His staff rally round to try and contain the story and work out what to do with the woman involved in the scandal, while Harts wife and daughter deal with the fallout back home. All the while, the reporters and TV are having a field day. Every part of the story is interesting, and the characters involved are all superb. What always helps a movie like this though is when it is based on true events and what helps it even more is the fantastic cast, who all do a brilliant job at making this a very enjoyable movie.
Joe Elliott recommended Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars: The Motion Picture Soundtrack by David Bowie in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hunter Killer (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Now let's be honest, we all know that Hunter Killer isn't going to be sweeping the Oscar noms. As action fans, do we care? Noooooope!
This is a film that does exactly what you expect, and want it to do. It's Olympus Has Fallen. It's White House Down. It's Geostorm. It's modern action that you don't have to think about. It's that perfect diversion.
I think they tried to capitalise on the big names in this one for the posters. It doesn't really seem like Gary Oldman is in it enough to warrant second billing, but what do I know? The supporting actors were very good. The more I see Common pop up in films the more I'm enjoying him. There are also great performances from Toby Stephens, Michael Nyqvist and Linda Cardellini, which was a nice surprise.
Thanks to half term and my holiday I was traumatised to realise that I was potentially going to miss this one at the cinema. It was on for just one week at my Cineworld which coincided with my first week away, I got back to find most places weren't showing it any more and as expected, I was annoyed. Stupid half term. Vue ended up coming to my rescue with one slight drawback... it was only showing at a time where I'd have norally been in bed for about two hours.
There was a reason for the last bit of waffle. Having to see it in the middle of the night, I was fully aware that the film starts out relatively slowly. I found myself drifting off a little bit, but when the action started I was drawn in and some of the pieces were very effective.
I ended up doing a bit of an IMDb surf from this film while looking at some of the actors. It was a surprising learning curve. Hunter Killer was one of the last films made by Michael Nyqvist before his death, I also discovered that Toby Stephens is Maggie Smith's son. Two very different things that I'm surprised I didn't know.
What you should do
Hunter Killer is definitely worth watching if you catch it on the TV or streaming. It's an entertaining action film that will pass a couple of hours.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with some handy radar that would help me work out if spaces were big enough for me to parallel park in.
This is a film that does exactly what you expect, and want it to do. It's Olympus Has Fallen. It's White House Down. It's Geostorm. It's modern action that you don't have to think about. It's that perfect diversion.
I think they tried to capitalise on the big names in this one for the posters. It doesn't really seem like Gary Oldman is in it enough to warrant second billing, but what do I know? The supporting actors were very good. The more I see Common pop up in films the more I'm enjoying him. There are also great performances from Toby Stephens, Michael Nyqvist and Linda Cardellini, which was a nice surprise.
Thanks to half term and my holiday I was traumatised to realise that I was potentially going to miss this one at the cinema. It was on for just one week at my Cineworld which coincided with my first week away, I got back to find most places weren't showing it any more and as expected, I was annoyed. Stupid half term. Vue ended up coming to my rescue with one slight drawback... it was only showing at a time where I'd have norally been in bed for about two hours.
There was a reason for the last bit of waffle. Having to see it in the middle of the night, I was fully aware that the film starts out relatively slowly. I found myself drifting off a little bit, but when the action started I was drawn in and some of the pieces were very effective.
I ended up doing a bit of an IMDb surf from this film while looking at some of the actors. It was a surprising learning curve. Hunter Killer was one of the last films made by Michael Nyqvist before his death, I also discovered that Toby Stephens is Maggie Smith's son. Two very different things that I'm surprised I didn't know.
What you should do
Hunter Killer is definitely worth watching if you catch it on the TV or streaming. It's an entertaining action film that will pass a couple of hours.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with some handy radar that would help me work out if spaces were big enough for me to parallel park in.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Air Force One (1997) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Air Force One starts as we see President James Marshall (Ford) having a proud moment after capturing a terrorist leader and coming out with how he wants to take on Congress. Returning home on Air Force One President Marshall finds his plane hijacked by Ivan Korshunov (Oldman) who wants the recently captured terrorist released.
Once in control of Air Force One Ivan uses the President’s wife Grace (Crewson) and daughter Alice (Matthews) as leverage to push the President into breaking his no negotiations with terrorist’s stance, as he uses his combat skills to take out the terrorists himself from on board. The Vice President Kathryn Bennett (Close) has to control things from the ground potentially having to make the biggest decisions.
Air Force One gave us an action film unlike anything we had seen before because this time the action hero was none other than the President himself and yes I know we did get a strong leader in Independence Day but this time he was the star of the show. We get to see how the President will handle the action pressure as well as the big decisions. Another great part of this film is that we get to see the traitor from the start and always wonder what their next move will be. When we see action films we like to cheer for the guy who is against the odds and this gives us that and plenty more as we watch a nation wait for the news of his safety.
Actor Review
Harrison Ford: President James Marshall is a medal of honour winning soldier who has bought in a new no negotiation with terrorist stance. He finds his Air Force One under hijack where instead of escaping like procedure he takes a stand as he tries to take out the men taking over the plane. James is one of the best action Presidents in film history instead of being just a by the book nice guy. Harrison is brilliant in this role where he gets to show a new line of stunt work to go with a strong leader and action star.president
Gary Oldman: Ivan Korshunov is the extremist terrorist who has taken over Air Force One, he will kill any hostages to get what he wants which is one extremist leader to be released from prison. Ivan is one of the most memorable villains of the 90s because he is ruthless to the core. Gary is brilliant in this role showing he can play any character.ivan
Glenn Close: Vice President Kathryn Bennett has to make the decisions back in America as she is left helpless with the hijack of Air Force One. She must deal with all the diplomatic decisions as well as helping her President and innocent people on board the plane. Glenn is great in this role showing how difficult the side of this story is away from the action.vice
Wendy Crewson: Grace Marshall is the wife of the President who is on Air Force One, she becomes the leverage for Ivan to get what he wants. Wendy is good even if the character isn’t given the true screen time needed.
Support Cast: Air Force One has a big supporting cast that is filled with known names in the business who all help the story unfold with their different acts of bravery and betray.
Director Review: Wolfgang Petersen – Wolfgang gives us one of the best action films from the 90s that also gives us glimpses of political decision being made.
Action: Air Force One has plenty of action being most of the President taking on the terrorists.
Adventure: Air Force One works for the adventure side of story trying to save the day.
Thriller: Air Force One keeps us on the edge from the moment that Air Force One is hijack until the end credits.
Settings: Air Force One keeps the settings on both Air Force One and White House as the decisions get made for the good of the country.
Special Effects: Air Force One has good effects for the time but have started to date now.
Suggestion: Air Force One is one for all the action junkies to enjoy. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Parachute escape.
Worst Part: Political side gets slightly annoying.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Con Air, The Rock
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Sound and Film Editing
Box Office: $172 Million
Budget: $85 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Harrison Ford is the President of the United States.
Overall: Brilliant action film that keeps us on edge from start to finish.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/11/air-force-one-1997/
Once in control of Air Force One Ivan uses the President’s wife Grace (Crewson) and daughter Alice (Matthews) as leverage to push the President into breaking his no negotiations with terrorist’s stance, as he uses his combat skills to take out the terrorists himself from on board. The Vice President Kathryn Bennett (Close) has to control things from the ground potentially having to make the biggest decisions.
Air Force One gave us an action film unlike anything we had seen before because this time the action hero was none other than the President himself and yes I know we did get a strong leader in Independence Day but this time he was the star of the show. We get to see how the President will handle the action pressure as well as the big decisions. Another great part of this film is that we get to see the traitor from the start and always wonder what their next move will be. When we see action films we like to cheer for the guy who is against the odds and this gives us that and plenty more as we watch a nation wait for the news of his safety.
Actor Review
Harrison Ford: President James Marshall is a medal of honour winning soldier who has bought in a new no negotiation with terrorist stance. He finds his Air Force One under hijack where instead of escaping like procedure he takes a stand as he tries to take out the men taking over the plane. James is one of the best action Presidents in film history instead of being just a by the book nice guy. Harrison is brilliant in this role where he gets to show a new line of stunt work to go with a strong leader and action star.president
Gary Oldman: Ivan Korshunov is the extremist terrorist who has taken over Air Force One, he will kill any hostages to get what he wants which is one extremist leader to be released from prison. Ivan is one of the most memorable villains of the 90s because he is ruthless to the core. Gary is brilliant in this role showing he can play any character.ivan
Glenn Close: Vice President Kathryn Bennett has to make the decisions back in America as she is left helpless with the hijack of Air Force One. She must deal with all the diplomatic decisions as well as helping her President and innocent people on board the plane. Glenn is great in this role showing how difficult the side of this story is away from the action.vice
Wendy Crewson: Grace Marshall is the wife of the President who is on Air Force One, she becomes the leverage for Ivan to get what he wants. Wendy is good even if the character isn’t given the true screen time needed.
Support Cast: Air Force One has a big supporting cast that is filled with known names in the business who all help the story unfold with their different acts of bravery and betray.
Director Review: Wolfgang Petersen – Wolfgang gives us one of the best action films from the 90s that also gives us glimpses of political decision being made.
Action: Air Force One has plenty of action being most of the President taking on the terrorists.
Adventure: Air Force One works for the adventure side of story trying to save the day.
Thriller: Air Force One keeps us on the edge from the moment that Air Force One is hijack until the end credits.
Settings: Air Force One keeps the settings on both Air Force One and White House as the decisions get made for the good of the country.
Special Effects: Air Force One has good effects for the time but have started to date now.
Suggestion: Air Force One is one for all the action junkies to enjoy. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Parachute escape.
Worst Part: Political side gets slightly annoying.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Con Air, The Rock
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Sound and Film Editing
Box Office: $172 Million
Budget: $85 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Harrison Ford is the President of the United States.
Overall: Brilliant action film that keeps us on edge from start to finish.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/11/air-force-one-1997/
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Masters of Horror: A Horror Anthology in Books
Jun 26, 2020
112 of 200
Kindle
Masters of Horror: A Horror anthology
Presented by Matt Shaw
Collection of authors
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt Shaw to bring him their twisted tales for this anthology. A book put together with the sole purpose of reminding readers what the horror genre is really about. Each author was told they could write about any subject matter they wanted so long as it was set in a world of horror. The only rule they had: No Paranormal Romance. Vampires do not sparkle, werewolves do not date, Witches do not scour Tinder for Virgins and ghosts do not declare their undying love whilst tidying the apartment... This is horror... Featuring work from: Introduction- Matt Shaw Brian Lumley - The Cyprus Shell Ramsey Campbell- Again Sam West- Survival J R Park - Mary Peter McKeirnon- Doll Face Andrew Freudenberg- A Taste of Mercy Mason Sabre - Chocolate Shaun Hutson- The Contract Anton Palmer- Dead-Eyed Dick Wrath James White- Beast Mode Shane McKenzie- Dewey Davenport Tonia Brown - Zolem Graeme Reynolds- The Pit Adam L.G. Nevill- Hippocampus Gary McMahon- You Can Go Now Ryan Harding - Down There Matt Shaw - Letter From Hell Matt Hickman- Eye For An Eye Daniel Marc Chant - Three Black Dogs Amy Cross- Checkout Kit Power- Loco Parentis Adam Millard - In The Family Guy N. Smith - The Priest Hole Jaime Johnesee- Just Breathe Craig Saunders- Raintown Sam Michael Bray - The End Is Where You’ll Find It Jeff Strand- Don’t Make Fun Of The Haunted House Mark Cassell - Trust Issues Paul Flewitt- The Silent Invader Clare Riley Whitfield- The Clay Man Jim Goforth- Animus Brian Lumley - The Deep-Sea Conch Chris Hall- Afterword
A few comments on the ones I enjoyed the most!
1. The Cyprus shell by Brain Lumley
This is a letter to a friend explaining his recent early departure from a dinner party. He explains his awful experience and aversion to oysters! Got to say I loved it and it captured so much in a short letter!
2. Again by Ramsey Campbell
This is a strange little story about a hiker discovering a strange old woman keeping her almost dead husband tied to a bed. It was a little strange.
4. Mary by J R Park
Ooo this was good religious symbols and lots of murder and blood!!
5 Doll Face by Peter McKeirnon
This was creepy as f**k there are no limits to what a father would do for his little girl!
6. A taste of Mercy by Andrew Freudenburg
Brilliant so sad and yet so gross! You felt every word of the woe the trenches brought these men!
7 chocolate by Mason Sabre
Ok so I will be keeping a close eye on my kids and their imaginary friends needing chocolate haha loved it!
8 The Contract by Shaun Hutson
Well this taught us one thing is certain killing death would be a very silly thing to do!!
9 Dead-eyed Dick by Anton Palmer
This had me in tears laughing and must be every mans worst nightmare! I’m definitely getting my husband to read it! Brilliant!!
11 Hippocampus by Adam L.G. Nevill
Nevill is one of my favourite authors he has a way of taking you every step of the journey with every book he writes. This one did not disappoint I walked the length of that vessel
With him! I know have some pretty gruesome scenes in my head.
12 you can go now. By Gary McMahon
Totally heartbreaking in some way and utterly creepy in others! Also an eye opener to mental illness which I took from it!
13 letter from hell by Matt Shaw
Reading this made me sick to my stomach being a mum I think it’s my worst nightmare! I can just imagine how those mothers felt when their children never came home! Totally gut wrenching!!
14 Eye for an eye by Matt Hickman
Brilliant! Gruesome and totally what you’d expect from the afterlife of a murderer!
16 Loco Parentis by Kit Power
About a man rounding up a pedophile ring and breaking some bones but in a strange twist he turns it on the reader lol very good!!
I absolutely loved most of these stories I think there is something in there for every Horror fan I’ve also found a few more authors!
Kindle
Masters of Horror: A Horror anthology
Presented by Matt Shaw
Collection of authors
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt Shaw to bring him their twisted tales for this anthology. A book put together with the sole purpose of reminding readers what the horror genre is really about. Each author was told they could write about any subject matter they wanted so long as it was set in a world of horror. The only rule they had: No Paranormal Romance. Vampires do not sparkle, werewolves do not date, Witches do not scour Tinder for Virgins and ghosts do not declare their undying love whilst tidying the apartment... This is horror... Featuring work from: Introduction- Matt Shaw Brian Lumley - The Cyprus Shell Ramsey Campbell- Again Sam West- Survival J R Park - Mary Peter McKeirnon- Doll Face Andrew Freudenberg- A Taste of Mercy Mason Sabre - Chocolate Shaun Hutson- The Contract Anton Palmer- Dead-Eyed Dick Wrath James White- Beast Mode Shane McKenzie- Dewey Davenport Tonia Brown - Zolem Graeme Reynolds- The Pit Adam L.G. Nevill- Hippocampus Gary McMahon- You Can Go Now Ryan Harding - Down There Matt Shaw - Letter From Hell Matt Hickman- Eye For An Eye Daniel Marc Chant - Three Black Dogs Amy Cross- Checkout Kit Power- Loco Parentis Adam Millard - In The Family Guy N. Smith - The Priest Hole Jaime Johnesee- Just Breathe Craig Saunders- Raintown Sam Michael Bray - The End Is Where You’ll Find It Jeff Strand- Don’t Make Fun Of The Haunted House Mark Cassell - Trust Issues Paul Flewitt- The Silent Invader Clare Riley Whitfield- The Clay Man Jim Goforth- Animus Brian Lumley - The Deep-Sea Conch Chris Hall- Afterword
A few comments on the ones I enjoyed the most!
1. The Cyprus shell by Brain Lumley
This is a letter to a friend explaining his recent early departure from a dinner party. He explains his awful experience and aversion to oysters! Got to say I loved it and it captured so much in a short letter!
2. Again by Ramsey Campbell
This is a strange little story about a hiker discovering a strange old woman keeping her almost dead husband tied to a bed. It was a little strange.
4. Mary by J R Park
Ooo this was good religious symbols and lots of murder and blood!!
5 Doll Face by Peter McKeirnon
This was creepy as f**k there are no limits to what a father would do for his little girl!
6. A taste of Mercy by Andrew Freudenburg
Brilliant so sad and yet so gross! You felt every word of the woe the trenches brought these men!
7 chocolate by Mason Sabre
Ok so I will be keeping a close eye on my kids and their imaginary friends needing chocolate haha loved it!
8 The Contract by Shaun Hutson
Well this taught us one thing is certain killing death would be a very silly thing to do!!
9 Dead-eyed Dick by Anton Palmer
This had me in tears laughing and must be every mans worst nightmare! I’m definitely getting my husband to read it! Brilliant!!
11 Hippocampus by Adam L.G. Nevill
Nevill is one of my favourite authors he has a way of taking you every step of the journey with every book he writes. This one did not disappoint I walked the length of that vessel
With him! I know have some pretty gruesome scenes in my head.
12 you can go now. By Gary McMahon
Totally heartbreaking in some way and utterly creepy in others! Also an eye opener to mental illness which I took from it!
13 letter from hell by Matt Shaw
Reading this made me sick to my stomach being a mum I think it’s my worst nightmare! I can just imagine how those mothers felt when their children never came home! Totally gut wrenching!!
14 Eye for an eye by Matt Hickman
Brilliant! Gruesome and totally what you’d expect from the afterlife of a murderer!
16 Loco Parentis by Kit Power
About a man rounding up a pedophile ring and breaking some bones but in a strange twist he turns it on the reader lol very good!!
I absolutely loved most of these stories I think there is something in there for every Horror fan I’ve also found a few more authors!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“The Hunger Games” is based in a post-apocalyptic time when the world has been overcome by a series of devastating natural disasters and people have turned on each other to provide supplies for their families and for themselves in order to survive.
Bringing peace to the land was a nation known as Panem which is ruled by the Capitol. Panem had once consisted of thirteen districts all providing a resource essential to the survival of its people. An uprising against the Capitol caused much anger and destruction resulting in war and the annihilation of its thirteenth district.
With the intent to make sure such an uprising would never happen again, the Capitol required each of the twelve remaining districts to abide by the rules and regulations written in the Treaty of Treason to make sure that there is peace within Panem. Once a year a lottery is held where each of the twelve districts must offer up one young man and one young woman as tributes. This must be done in order to remind the people of Panem what was lost. Each of the 24 tributes must train and then battle for survival in an outdoor arena against each other leaving only one tribute to become the victor. This is known as The Hunger Games.
“The Hunger Games” is based upon the New York times best seller written by Suzanne Collins and directed by Gary Ross who also directed Seabiscuit. The storyline follows the main character Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers as tribute in order to save her younger sister from having to fight and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) has also been randomly chosen as tribute for the twelfth district.
The movie mostly follows these two characters on their journey to the battle ground as opposed to the book where we get a little more background into each of the different districts and their tributes. Who will be the victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games?
Let me start off by stating that you do not need to have read the book in order to enjoy this film. However, the movie does follow the book very well. Fans will always have their own very strong opinions as to whether the films follow their favorite books but for someone who read the book after I watched the movie I must say I was not lost nor did I feel disappointed that I did not read it prior to screening it.
This film includes a great cast such as Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and a surprisingly effectively-cast Lenny Kravitz. Along with a fitting cast the film also offers a great soundtrack, colors that fit each district and great cinematography.
It is always interesting to hear the comments of the other reviewers after the end of a movie screening. Some commented on how they pictured certain characters as a totally different type of character than what was portrayed in the book such as Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz.
One lady pictured him as a slim Asian man while my guest pictured him as a flamboyant white man with a high fashion sense. Others commented on how shaky the cinematography was. Yes, granted it does get shaky in a lot of the scenes but it only adds action to the heart pounding edge of your seat scenes. This film is a kickstart to the season of great movies to come and I predict “The Hunger Games” will reach a bigger audience as it provides elements of action, drama and sci-fi to satisfy a larger audience.
For those of you who have not read the book I do have to warn you some of the scenes and or elements of the story may be just a little too disturbing for some but is a great story nonetheless.
Bringing peace to the land was a nation known as Panem which is ruled by the Capitol. Panem had once consisted of thirteen districts all providing a resource essential to the survival of its people. An uprising against the Capitol caused much anger and destruction resulting in war and the annihilation of its thirteenth district.
With the intent to make sure such an uprising would never happen again, the Capitol required each of the twelve remaining districts to abide by the rules and regulations written in the Treaty of Treason to make sure that there is peace within Panem. Once a year a lottery is held where each of the twelve districts must offer up one young man and one young woman as tributes. This must be done in order to remind the people of Panem what was lost. Each of the 24 tributes must train and then battle for survival in an outdoor arena against each other leaving only one tribute to become the victor. This is known as The Hunger Games.
“The Hunger Games” is based upon the New York times best seller written by Suzanne Collins and directed by Gary Ross who also directed Seabiscuit. The storyline follows the main character Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers as tribute in order to save her younger sister from having to fight and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) has also been randomly chosen as tribute for the twelfth district.
The movie mostly follows these two characters on their journey to the battle ground as opposed to the book where we get a little more background into each of the different districts and their tributes. Who will be the victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games?
Let me start off by stating that you do not need to have read the book in order to enjoy this film. However, the movie does follow the book very well. Fans will always have their own very strong opinions as to whether the films follow their favorite books but for someone who read the book after I watched the movie I must say I was not lost nor did I feel disappointed that I did not read it prior to screening it.
This film includes a great cast such as Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and a surprisingly effectively-cast Lenny Kravitz. Along with a fitting cast the film also offers a great soundtrack, colors that fit each district and great cinematography.
It is always interesting to hear the comments of the other reviewers after the end of a movie screening. Some commented on how they pictured certain characters as a totally different type of character than what was portrayed in the book such as Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz.
One lady pictured him as a slim Asian man while my guest pictured him as a flamboyant white man with a high fashion sense. Others commented on how shaky the cinematography was. Yes, granted it does get shaky in a lot of the scenes but it only adds action to the heart pounding edge of your seat scenes. This film is a kickstart to the season of great movies to come and I predict “The Hunger Games” will reach a bigger audience as it provides elements of action, drama and sci-fi to satisfy a larger audience.
For those of you who have not read the book I do have to warn you some of the scenes and or elements of the story may be just a little too disturbing for some but is a great story nonetheless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
After four years, since The Dark Knight ended, leaving us wanting more and seven years since Christopher Nolan reinvented the comic book adaptation with Batman Begins, The final chapter of The Dark Knight Trilogy has arrived.
With this much hype, would it possible live up to potentially bloated expectations? The first reviews hit last monday, with 4 to 5 stars being the consensus. Well, it did! The Dark Knight returns one last time, after eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and Batman had retreated into the rebuilt Wayne Manor as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), maintaining the lie that Harvey Dent was Gotham’s The White Knight, and not the maniacal Two-Face, had managed to clean up Gotham City.
Batman was no longer needed but in the meantime, Bane has arrived in the city with grand plans for its destruction. I won’t go much further into the plot that this, though I will probably write a more spoiler heavy review for the Blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I will try to maintain the film’s integrity.
When we first meet Bruce Wayne after almost a decade of seclusion, he is a broken man, both physically and mentally following the murder of his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes in the previous film and the toll of nightly combat. So the first port of call is to bring Batman back to the streets of Gotham. The sense of excitement is palpable and very much a part of what makes Nolan’s films tick.
He draws his audience into the narrative as if we are part of the events and the universe as it unfolds, leaving us not just wanting Batman to return for the sake of the action but for Gotham’s sake as well. Bane, played so excellently by Tom Hardy, was a little difficult to understand from behind his mask, but still conveyed an enormous amount of presence and power, as he lays siege to the city but not as Terrorist per say, but as a freedom fighter or revolutionary, with many visual references to the French Revolution to keep us going.
Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman, though not named as anyone other than Selina Kyle, was a credit to her character as well as the actress. Dark, sultry, seductive and agile, her feline credibly was intact, whilst still being a very human character. Her duplicity was bread from desperation rather than evil and her motives convincingly drive her in both good and more dubious endeavours.
*** MAJOR SPOILER***
The less said about Talia Al Ghul the better, but the for those aware of her role, it was well-played, though her final scene was the hammiest in the film, possibly the entire trilogy.
Then there’s the supporting cast, such as Mathew Modene, who does a great job as Dept. Commissioner Foley and Cillian Murphy’s back again, as the subtly unrecognisable Scarecrow, who besides some frayed shoulder’s on his jacket, could have been anyone,and that’s the beauty of Nolan’s Batman universe. It’s fluid and you can’t count on anything on anyone for too long.
But this franchise would be nothing without Hans Zimmer percussive score, pounding as much as it was gentle, it works well among with Nolan’s direction to craft the near perfect conclusion to the Trilogy. Both riff on earlier films and supe it up accordingly whilst maintaining the film’s integrity.
In the end, my expectations were met and exceeded. Nolan has crowned his trilogy with a film which is of the same calabar as the two which preceded it, filling in many of the blanks, choosing the right characters to take on and doing so a variety of ways, touching this time on the flamboyant Bain, though scrapping the “Venom” plot from the comics, creating an intriguing Catwoman and building another major character in the form of R. John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Lovett).
The ending of the film is just perfect, not only for this but for the entire Trilogy. With nods to Inception though I believe that it is just a nod and not as similar as some would protest, but this is epic in the way that The Dark Knight never tried to be and Batman Begins didn’t need to be. The threat is apocalyptic, in keeping with the genre, but believable in keeping with Nolan.
The same can be said for the action, though I must admit, the sentimentalist in me wanted to see the Batmoble/Tumber back, though it was there in triplicate, as Bane steels three prototype Tumbers from Wayne Enterprises, for his private army, but the Bat (Batwing) was stunning, and the Batpod made a reappearance. The Final showdown will leave you breathless, the perfect blend of direction, Zimmer’s score and some of the most intense and meaningful action you’ll see on the big screen.
The only real faults with The Dark Knight Rises stem from its scale and change in direction. It’s more about Batman’s evolution from crime fighter to savour. Less intense on a personal level, but much grander in its ideals and horror as Gotham is destroyed on scale never seen in a film of this type. But it’s not as far-fetched as one may think, as it grounds itself with historical references, such as the French Revolution, which was hardly far-fetched, though it was hard-hitting and is well translated here.
Bruce Wayne completes his journey from the boy who witnessed his parents murder, to a young man who could not grow beyond it, to a man who lost himself in a journey to understand the criminal mind. Finally returning as Batman, who defied his mentor to protect his beloved city, to a master detective. But here, he returns to his roots.
The billionaire who never cared about his wealth as much as he cared for the people of Gotham, he ends up exactly where he needed to be. Decide for yourself, whether it’s a happy ending, sad or satisfying, but either way, it was not only the best way to advance the saga, but the best way to end the series as a whole. Thanks to Nolan and his crew, we now have the most definitively brilliant Batman series EVER committed to celluloid, (or digital), and no matter what is to follow, whether it is to be the Justice League mash-up or another reboot, I suspect that it will be a long, long time before anyone can beat these.
With this much hype, would it possible live up to potentially bloated expectations? The first reviews hit last monday, with 4 to 5 stars being the consensus. Well, it did! The Dark Knight returns one last time, after eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and Batman had retreated into the rebuilt Wayne Manor as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), maintaining the lie that Harvey Dent was Gotham’s The White Knight, and not the maniacal Two-Face, had managed to clean up Gotham City.
Batman was no longer needed but in the meantime, Bane has arrived in the city with grand plans for its destruction. I won’t go much further into the plot that this, though I will probably write a more spoiler heavy review for the Blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I will try to maintain the film’s integrity.
When we first meet Bruce Wayne after almost a decade of seclusion, he is a broken man, both physically and mentally following the murder of his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes in the previous film and the toll of nightly combat. So the first port of call is to bring Batman back to the streets of Gotham. The sense of excitement is palpable and very much a part of what makes Nolan’s films tick.
He draws his audience into the narrative as if we are part of the events and the universe as it unfolds, leaving us not just wanting Batman to return for the sake of the action but for Gotham’s sake as well. Bane, played so excellently by Tom Hardy, was a little difficult to understand from behind his mask, but still conveyed an enormous amount of presence and power, as he lays siege to the city but not as Terrorist per say, but as a freedom fighter or revolutionary, with many visual references to the French Revolution to keep us going.
Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman, though not named as anyone other than Selina Kyle, was a credit to her character as well as the actress. Dark, sultry, seductive and agile, her feline credibly was intact, whilst still being a very human character. Her duplicity was bread from desperation rather than evil and her motives convincingly drive her in both good and more dubious endeavours.
*** MAJOR SPOILER***
The less said about Talia Al Ghul the better, but the for those aware of her role, it was well-played, though her final scene was the hammiest in the film, possibly the entire trilogy.
Then there’s the supporting cast, such as Mathew Modene, who does a great job as Dept. Commissioner Foley and Cillian Murphy’s back again, as the subtly unrecognisable Scarecrow, who besides some frayed shoulder’s on his jacket, could have been anyone,and that’s the beauty of Nolan’s Batman universe. It’s fluid and you can’t count on anything on anyone for too long.
But this franchise would be nothing without Hans Zimmer percussive score, pounding as much as it was gentle, it works well among with Nolan’s direction to craft the near perfect conclusion to the Trilogy. Both riff on earlier films and supe it up accordingly whilst maintaining the film’s integrity.
In the end, my expectations were met and exceeded. Nolan has crowned his trilogy with a film which is of the same calabar as the two which preceded it, filling in many of the blanks, choosing the right characters to take on and doing so a variety of ways, touching this time on the flamboyant Bain, though scrapping the “Venom” plot from the comics, creating an intriguing Catwoman and building another major character in the form of R. John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Lovett).
The ending of the film is just perfect, not only for this but for the entire Trilogy. With nods to Inception though I believe that it is just a nod and not as similar as some would protest, but this is epic in the way that The Dark Knight never tried to be and Batman Begins didn’t need to be. The threat is apocalyptic, in keeping with the genre, but believable in keeping with Nolan.
The same can be said for the action, though I must admit, the sentimentalist in me wanted to see the Batmoble/Tumber back, though it was there in triplicate, as Bane steels three prototype Tumbers from Wayne Enterprises, for his private army, but the Bat (Batwing) was stunning, and the Batpod made a reappearance. The Final showdown will leave you breathless, the perfect blend of direction, Zimmer’s score and some of the most intense and meaningful action you’ll see on the big screen.
The only real faults with The Dark Knight Rises stem from its scale and change in direction. It’s more about Batman’s evolution from crime fighter to savour. Less intense on a personal level, but much grander in its ideals and horror as Gotham is destroyed on scale never seen in a film of this type. But it’s not as far-fetched as one may think, as it grounds itself with historical references, such as the French Revolution, which was hardly far-fetched, though it was hard-hitting and is well translated here.
Bruce Wayne completes his journey from the boy who witnessed his parents murder, to a young man who could not grow beyond it, to a man who lost himself in a journey to understand the criminal mind. Finally returning as Batman, who defied his mentor to protect his beloved city, to a master detective. But here, he returns to his roots.
The billionaire who never cared about his wealth as much as he cared for the people of Gotham, he ends up exactly where he needed to be. Decide for yourself, whether it’s a happy ending, sad or satisfying, but either way, it was not only the best way to advance the saga, but the best way to end the series as a whole. Thanks to Nolan and his crew, we now have the most definitively brilliant Batman series EVER committed to celluloid, (or digital), and no matter what is to follow, whether it is to be the Justice League mash-up or another reboot, I suspect that it will be a long, long time before anyone can beat these.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The Dark Knight picks up not too long after Batman Begins left off. The way the citizens of Gotham look at Batman is still pretty divided. Some see him as a vigilante in a mask who takes the law into his own hands and others see him as a caped crusader who helps keep scum off the streets. A hero to some and a villain to others. Harvey Dent, the man running for DA, enters the picture and could be the face Gotham is looking for to be its new hero. A man who's not only capable of getting rid of the filth on the streets of Gotham in a more efficient manner, but could be the reason Batman hangs up his cape for good. It seems as though Gotham has found itself with a new criminal psychopath though that's keeping Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Gotham PD busy these days. The Joker is, without a doubt, Batman's most dangerous adversary. A madman whose only desire is to give Gotham a better class of criminal. Bruce Wayne goes beyond his limits as Batman to try and take him down and all The Joker wants is for Gotham to be filled with pure chaos. Can Batman bring The Joker to justice? Will Harvey Dent become Gotham's new white knight? How does Rachel Dawes fit into the picture?
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.