Search
Search results
Mark Halpern (153 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
fighting for others but fighting for yourself
Roman (Washington) is a defense attorney who is basically kept behind the scenes more as an advisory position partner who he has worked with for 20 plus years dies of an heart attack and the practice is being dissolved. George (Farrllel) is a head partner at the firm that has acquired Roman'f firms cases and is offered an position because of his knowledge of the law and his caring for his clients. He has abides by the law his whole life but a life changing event happens and he sees an opportunity to do something for him even if it is against his morals and the law. How does he live with himself afterwards and what becomes him only the story can tell you.
Lots of lawyer movies you see these days involve the lawyer to get involved in some type of action sequence. This movie brings us to a great story, a good plot and a great cast. The only problem with it is that it is a little slow and at times and makes you kind of not interested but, then it picks back up again. This is a must for any Denzel Washington fan. Colin Farrell is very good as well
Lots of lawyer movies you see these days involve the lawyer to get involved in some type of action sequence. This movie brings us to a great story, a good plot and a great cast. The only problem with it is that it is a little slow and at times and makes you kind of not interested but, then it picks back up again. This is a must for any Denzel Washington fan. Colin Farrell is very good as well
Phil Maxwell (25 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Apr 9, 2020 (Updated Apr 9, 2020)
Painfully short (2 more)
Hadn't really found it's way in the beginning
Seemed like a Pilot in 5 parts
Slow To Start
So... I have recently started binging Seinfeld from the beginning, after not having watched it for years.
I probably should've started from Season 2, though really, as, had I been watching it on television when it first aired, I'd have probably not paid Seinfeld too much mind.
Aside from being painfully short (with a run of only 5 episodes), I find in retrospect that the storylines were incredibly banal and didn't really serve to make any of the characters have any lasting affect on the viewer.
Jerry, his ex Elaine, his friend George and Cosmo Kramer, the quirky presumptuous neighbour, all had an opportunity to make an impression in Season 1, yet none of them really hit the nail on the head.
It seemed, to me at least, like all 5 episodes were basically a Pilot broken up into pieces, and it really showed. I am thankful I stayed with it, though, as when the show progressed past that everyone seemed to find their niche that little bit more, and the storylines became more rich with it.
I probably should've started from Season 2, though really, as, had I been watching it on television when it first aired, I'd have probably not paid Seinfeld too much mind.
Aside from being painfully short (with a run of only 5 episodes), I find in retrospect that the storylines were incredibly banal and didn't really serve to make any of the characters have any lasting affect on the viewer.
Jerry, his ex Elaine, his friend George and Cosmo Kramer, the quirky presumptuous neighbour, all had an opportunity to make an impression in Season 1, yet none of them really hit the nail on the head.
It seemed, to me at least, like all 5 episodes were basically a Pilot broken up into pieces, and it really showed. I am thankful I stayed with it, though, as when the show progressed past that everyone seemed to find their niche that little bit more, and the storylines became more rich with it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Free Birds (2013) in Movies
Nov 26, 2020
A Fun Thanksgiving Flick
When asked to list films worth watching that have a Thanksgiving theme, the BankofMarquis likes to pull out a little animated gem that came and went pretty quickly in 2013 - FREE BIRDS - starring the voices of Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson as 2 turkeys that go back in time in an egg-shaped time machine named STEVE (voiced by George Takei - more on that later) to stop the first Thanksgiving. This film succeeds more than it doesn't.
The first full length animated feature film from REEL FX (one of only 2 they have put out thus far) FREE BIRDS suffers from that kiss of death - multiple writers revising the script over time. Directed by JImmy Hayward (HORTON HEARS A WHO), who is also credited with writing this film alongside long time Kevin Smith collaborator Scott Mosier,FREE BIRDS is actually a pretty fun film, despite the disjointedness of the plot.
Credit should go to the stellar voice cast, led by Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson. They have tremendous chemistry together and are a fun pair to watch. Joining them is the always dependable Amy Poehler (who would shine as the voice of Joy years later in Pixar's INSIDE OUT). It was fun spending an hour and a half with these 3 - and the others in this cast: Colm Meaney, David Keith and Dan Fogler.
But, for me, the star of this film is Star Trek's George Takei as the voice of S.T.E.V.E (the egg-shaped time machine device). He understands what type of film he is in and delivers just the right blend of comedy and seriousness that helps elevate the proceedings. And that is good for, as I stated above, the plot is a bit disjointed, so I would recommend you just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
The critics panned this film, but it made over $110 million at the box office (more than doubling it's production cost), so many, many moviegoers had the same, fun experience that I did.
And...you will, too...if you give FREE BIRDS a try.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first full length animated feature film from REEL FX (one of only 2 they have put out thus far) FREE BIRDS suffers from that kiss of death - multiple writers revising the script over time. Directed by JImmy Hayward (HORTON HEARS A WHO), who is also credited with writing this film alongside long time Kevin Smith collaborator Scott Mosier,FREE BIRDS is actually a pretty fun film, despite the disjointedness of the plot.
Credit should go to the stellar voice cast, led by Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson. They have tremendous chemistry together and are a fun pair to watch. Joining them is the always dependable Amy Poehler (who would shine as the voice of Joy years later in Pixar's INSIDE OUT). It was fun spending an hour and a half with these 3 - and the others in this cast: Colm Meaney, David Keith and Dan Fogler.
But, for me, the star of this film is Star Trek's George Takei as the voice of S.T.E.V.E (the egg-shaped time machine device). He understands what type of film he is in and delivers just the right blend of comedy and seriousness that helps elevate the proceedings. And that is good for, as I stated above, the plot is a bit disjointed, so I would recommend you just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
The critics panned this film, but it made over $110 million at the box office (more than doubling it's production cost), so many, many moviegoers had the same, fun experience that I did.
And...you will, too...if you give FREE BIRDS a try.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2018) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Oct 26, 2020)
This Re-Imagining A Romero Classic Fails To Rise Above Average
Contains spoilers, click to show
Even copying or borrowing from George A. Romero's unique concept couldn't make this film better than an average zombie film. I was excited to see their interpretation of the smarter or more capable than average zombie in this movie and their origin story for him was quite unique and interesting. He was an obsessive stalker and attempted rapist whose body has a high amounts of antibodies. Five years after the main character Zoe escapes Whittendale University she gets the military to go back for medical supplies and Max is still there except a zombie but more. He finds her and sneaks back to their base "Cape Fear" style and then sneaks into the base. I found that a little unbelievable that he was able to sneak onto and into the base so easily but also kind of believable since it's been 5 years without any incidents as far as the audience knows. I also think that the movie was kind of inconsistent with what he's able to do or how much he can reason. He's smart enough to sneak into the base, and through vents but gets caught when he attacks Zoe and is captured. They order her to come up with a vaccine in 48 hours or Max will be killed regardless but then don't put an armed guard to watch over him. That was also a little to convenient to me. He manages to steal the handcuff keys form a soldier during a scuffle too which I thought was rather brilliant. Some good stuff in this movie but some stuff I thought could have been better done or different. As I mentioned some of the actors could have done a better job or the dialogue, story wasn't that original but overall a decent average zombie movie. Worth watching if your looking for a zombie movie to watch but nothing to wow you out of your seat. I give this movie a 5/10.
https://youtu.be/KTtNIIL3NXw
https://youtu.be/KTtNIIL3NXw
What scares you the most? Ghouls, vampires, slime-fanged aliens ...or something terrible that truly could happen? For me it's definitely the latter.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Becs (244 KP) rated Of Mice and Men in Books
Oct 2, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, a (somewhat) great historical fiction novel. I was just appalled by how slow the middle of the book was. I was so excited to read this book, as I’ve heard such great things about it. When I started, it was a little bumpy but as I kept reading, the road just kept becoming almost unbearable to continue. The ending though, spot on and definitely kicked my attention back into place. In all aspects, Of Mice and Men deserves a solid four gold stars. Reasons why below.
Genre: Literary classic, historical fiction
Audience: I definitely recommend at least a high schooler or up to read it. As it’s a little controversial and a bit harder of a read for a younger crowd.
Difficulty Reading: I almost put this down to never pick up and read again. I was about a millimeter away from doing it. But I have a thing against never finishing a book or DNF. If I’m going to pick something up and start reading it, I HAVE TO finish it, something about having an unfinished book doesn’t sit right with me. So, the answer is yes. This was a bit more of a difficult read. Now that it’s finished, I’m glad I stuck through and read the rest of the novel.
Insights: John Steinbeck is a great author and writer. I’ve read a few of his other novels and have loved them. Of Mice and Men just does not compare to the others. Maybe it’s the way that the characters speak. Maybe it’s the topic. Maybe it’s just Steinbeck lost touch with his writing when creating Of Mice and Men. Who knows, apparently some think that this novel is a piece of art. I mean, it’s still being sold nationwide. That must mean it’s somewhat good, right?
Ah-Ha Moment: When I found out that Lennie has a bit of a mental handicap issue. (This honestly sounds so bad in writing but I’m not trying to be rude about people who are mentally handicapped. I use to work as a caretaker for them and I loved it.) To continue on. You typically don’t see this style of character in this novels era. It was refreshing and different from other literary classic novels.
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Favorite Quotes: “Trouble with mice is you always kill ’em. ” – Honestly, this is a perfect short, one sentence summary of the novel. If you don’t want to read Of Mice and Men, what happens is: you have George and Lennie, always traveling together. Lennie is mentally handicapped and likes to pet soft things. He gets in trouble in Weed by touching a female’s dress and not letting go when she screams. They run and come to find work bucking barley. Here, Lennie kills a newborn pup then kills Curley’s wife. George shoots Lennie in the back of the head and the novel ends.
***END OF SPOILERS***
“Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. They come to a ranch an’ work up a stake, and the first thing you know they’re poundin’ their tail on some other ranch. They ain’t got nothing to look ahead to.” – I mean, you’re not wrong George. Ranchhands are typically pretty lonely, especially in those olden days.
What will you gain: A love-hate relationship for this novel. Seriously. I love it so much I gave it four gold stars. But I hate it so much because man, it was a bit of a bore.
“Maybe ever’body in the whole damn world is scared of each other.”
Genre: Literary classic, historical fiction
Audience: I definitely recommend at least a high schooler or up to read it. As it’s a little controversial and a bit harder of a read for a younger crowd.
Difficulty Reading: I almost put this down to never pick up and read again. I was about a millimeter away from doing it. But I have a thing against never finishing a book or DNF. If I’m going to pick something up and start reading it, I HAVE TO finish it, something about having an unfinished book doesn’t sit right with me. So, the answer is yes. This was a bit more of a difficult read. Now that it’s finished, I’m glad I stuck through and read the rest of the novel.
Insights: John Steinbeck is a great author and writer. I’ve read a few of his other novels and have loved them. Of Mice and Men just does not compare to the others. Maybe it’s the way that the characters speak. Maybe it’s the topic. Maybe it’s just Steinbeck lost touch with his writing when creating Of Mice and Men. Who knows, apparently some think that this novel is a piece of art. I mean, it’s still being sold nationwide. That must mean it’s somewhat good, right?
Ah-Ha Moment: When I found out that Lennie has a bit of a mental handicap issue. (This honestly sounds so bad in writing but I’m not trying to be rude about people who are mentally handicapped. I use to work as a caretaker for them and I loved it.) To continue on. You typically don’t see this style of character in this novels era. It was refreshing and different from other literary classic novels.
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Favorite Quotes: “Trouble with mice is you always kill ’em. ” – Honestly, this is a perfect short, one sentence summary of the novel. If you don’t want to read Of Mice and Men, what happens is: you have George and Lennie, always traveling together. Lennie is mentally handicapped and likes to pet soft things. He gets in trouble in Weed by touching a female’s dress and not letting go when she screams. They run and come to find work bucking barley. Here, Lennie kills a newborn pup then kills Curley’s wife. George shoots Lennie in the back of the head and the novel ends.
***END OF SPOILERS***
“Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. They come to a ranch an’ work up a stake, and the first thing you know they’re poundin’ their tail on some other ranch. They ain’t got nothing to look ahead to.” – I mean, you’re not wrong George. Ranchhands are typically pretty lonely, especially in those olden days.
What will you gain: A love-hate relationship for this novel. Seriously. I love it so much I gave it four gold stars. But I hate it so much because man, it was a bit of a bore.
“Maybe ever’body in the whole damn world is scared of each other.”
Saffy Alexandra (89 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in Books
Jun 1, 2019
Characters (3 more)
New plot
Humour, Wit and Sarcasm
Mystery
Ssssomething Special
As with all Harry Potter books I love them, because why wouldn’t you? And the one thing I find is that in the movies they tend to miss some of Rowling’s amazing sarcastic and hilarious scenes and if you are only a lover of the movies you tend to miss so much.
Now I will admit the book and the film absolutely terrified me when I was younger and still gives me a bit of creeps now, even though I do own a snake and love them to bits. Any who …
In this movie we meet new characters, one of which becomes very dear to everyone’s heart – aka Dobby! We meet the funny little House Elf who manages to wreck havoc in poor Harry’s life before he even gets to school with the whole dropping a pudding in the middle of the living room and then blocking 9 and 3 quarters to both Harry and Ron. Hence them then breaking the first law, do not expose Magic to Muggles. Then who could forget Gilderoy Lockhart? The incompetent but very good at memory spells Dark-Arts teacher. And then there is Moaning Myrtle, good old Myrtle.
Harry and Ron’s misadventures start right at the beginning of term, causing them to nearly be expelled. Thankfully not, other wise the book series would have been very short. More and more drama ensues to the Trio (Harry, Ron and Hermione) and the rest of the school as the book continues with Harry talking to snakes, Ginny acting strange, and then student’s being petrified including our brilliant Hermione. It’s then up to Harry and Ron to try and solve the mystery. You know, because all those suitably qualified teachers can’t do anything but a twelve year old can?
But what started off with causing everyone to avoid Harry within an inch of his life soon became the reason all the muggle-borns and half-blood’s stayed awake and not petrified. What would they ever do without Harr Potter?
A funny and dramatic second book in this series which grips you straight from the start with Rowling’s brilliant way to use mischief, sarcasm and wit in her writing.
A Favourite scene of mine that is in the books is:
“Fred and George, however, found all this very funny. They went out of
their way to march ahead of Harry down the corridors, shouting, "Make way for
the Heir of Slytherin, seriously evil wizard coming through ......
Percy was deeply disapproving of this behavior.
"It is not a laughing matter," he said coldly.
"Oh, get out of the way, Percy," said Fred. "Harry's in a hurry."
"Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged
servant," said George, chortling.
Ginny didn't find it amusing either.
"Oh, don't," she wailed every time Fred asked Harry loudly who he was
planning to attack next, or when George pretended to ward Harry off with a large
clove of garlic when they met.”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Now I will admit the book and the film absolutely terrified me when I was younger and still gives me a bit of creeps now, even though I do own a snake and love them to bits. Any who …
In this movie we meet new characters, one of which becomes very dear to everyone’s heart – aka Dobby! We meet the funny little House Elf who manages to wreck havoc in poor Harry’s life before he even gets to school with the whole dropping a pudding in the middle of the living room and then blocking 9 and 3 quarters to both Harry and Ron. Hence them then breaking the first law, do not expose Magic to Muggles. Then who could forget Gilderoy Lockhart? The incompetent but very good at memory spells Dark-Arts teacher. And then there is Moaning Myrtle, good old Myrtle.
Harry and Ron’s misadventures start right at the beginning of term, causing them to nearly be expelled. Thankfully not, other wise the book series would have been very short. More and more drama ensues to the Trio (Harry, Ron and Hermione) and the rest of the school as the book continues with Harry talking to snakes, Ginny acting strange, and then student’s being petrified including our brilliant Hermione. It’s then up to Harry and Ron to try and solve the mystery. You know, because all those suitably qualified teachers can’t do anything but a twelve year old can?
But what started off with causing everyone to avoid Harry within an inch of his life soon became the reason all the muggle-borns and half-blood’s stayed awake and not petrified. What would they ever do without Harr Potter?
A funny and dramatic second book in this series which grips you straight from the start with Rowling’s brilliant way to use mischief, sarcasm and wit in her writing.
A Favourite scene of mine that is in the books is:
“Fred and George, however, found all this very funny. They went out of
their way to march ahead of Harry down the corridors, shouting, "Make way for
the Heir of Slytherin, seriously evil wizard coming through ......
Percy was deeply disapproving of this behavior.
"It is not a laughing matter," he said coldly.
"Oh, get out of the way, Percy," said Fred. "Harry's in a hurry."
"Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged
servant," said George, chortling.
Ginny didn't find it amusing either.
"Oh, don't," she wailed every time Fred asked Harry loudly who he was
planning to attack next, or when George pretended to ward Harry off with a large
clove of garlic when they met.”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Predictable and cliched
The Midnight Sky is a science fiction film directed by George Clooney, the latest in a long line of Netflix originals to hit our screens, based on the 2016 book ‘Good Morning, Midnight’ by Lily Brooks-Dalton. George Clooney plays Augustine, who encounters young girl Iris (the adorable Caoilinn Springall) after remaining on earth following a global apocalypse. Together they must travel across the Arctic to reach a weather station that will allow them to warn returning spaceship, the Aether, captained by Adewole (David Oyelowo) and crewed by Sully (Felicity Jones), Mitchell (Kyle Chandler), Sanchez (Demián Bichir) and Maya (Tiffany Boone).
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Cracking British all star cast (1 more)
Reminds you just how crazy politics was in 2003
The best little UK film you've never seen
A film about whistle-blowing against the backdrop of the Iraq War of 2003 doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, but "Official Secrets" defies all those fears. It's a cracking little UK movie.
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
