Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Nov 17, 2018
Well crafted, well acted, well directed heist flick
If you are looking for a smart, intelligent, well-made, well-crafted, well-acted action-heist flick to see with the family over the Thanksgiving weekend, then look no further than WIDOWS.
Yes, it's that good.
Based on a 1983 British TV mini-series, Directed by Steve McQueen (12 YEARS A SLAVE) and with a Screenplay by McQueen and Gillian Flynn (GONE GIRL), WIDOWS tells the story of 4...yes...Widows who's husbands were mobsters that were killed while stealing money from other mobsters. When the rival mob comes to the Widows to get their money back, these women must band together to complete a job to get the money to save their lives.
Leading this disparate group of women is Oscar winner (for FENCES) Viola Davis. She brings a strength and vulnerability to her role and makes a surprisingly complex and charismatic center to this film. Joining her is the always tough and gritty Michelle Rodriguez and the eminently watchable Carrie Coon. The surprise performance of this group of widows is Elizabeth Debicki (the golden Ayesha in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 2). Her widow, Alice, is more than just the "good-looking" trophy wife and has a depth and gravitas that upon first glance is not something that seems to be there. These 4 are joined by Cynthia Erivo and their group could probably kick the crap out of the Ocean's 8 crew.
McQueen has assembled a diverse and interesting cast to support these 5 - each "smaller" role filled with someone who brings something to the table that makes their character interesting. Liam Neeson, Robert Duvall, Collin Farrell, the always watchable Garrett Dillahunt and Jackie Weaver fill the film with "screen presence", power and strong characterizations that service the story. Special notice should be made for Daniel Kaluuya (Oscar nominated for GET OUT). His menacing "bad guy" ranks right up there on the list of "dudes you don't want to mess with". He was fascinating to watch - especially when he was doing "nothing" - you could see the animal swimming within him in the most still of moments.
All of these actors are directed with the Orchestral efficiency of McQueen - a director who knows what he's doing. He keeps the focus of his cameras where he needs to, sometimes eschewing the most obvious action to focus our attention elsewhere. The downside to McQueen is that he sometimes gets enamored with his beautiful pictures and atmosphere, so the film gets bogged down at times - especially in the first half - but all of this is in service to the larger story - a story that demands our attention.
The screenplay by McQueen and Flynn is full of plot twists and turns, of course, keeping you guessing throughout and concludes in a most satisfactory manner.
All in all a very fine time at the Cineplex. In this week of a myriad of items competing for your movie-going dollars, I would strongly recommend that you pick WIDOWS out of the pile and settle in for a good time..
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, it's that good.
Based on a 1983 British TV mini-series, Directed by Steve McQueen (12 YEARS A SLAVE) and with a Screenplay by McQueen and Gillian Flynn (GONE GIRL), WIDOWS tells the story of 4...yes...Widows who's husbands were mobsters that were killed while stealing money from other mobsters. When the rival mob comes to the Widows to get their money back, these women must band together to complete a job to get the money to save their lives.
Leading this disparate group of women is Oscar winner (for FENCES) Viola Davis. She brings a strength and vulnerability to her role and makes a surprisingly complex and charismatic center to this film. Joining her is the always tough and gritty Michelle Rodriguez and the eminently watchable Carrie Coon. The surprise performance of this group of widows is Elizabeth Debicki (the golden Ayesha in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 2). Her widow, Alice, is more than just the "good-looking" trophy wife and has a depth and gravitas that upon first glance is not something that seems to be there. These 4 are joined by Cynthia Erivo and their group could probably kick the crap out of the Ocean's 8 crew.
McQueen has assembled a diverse and interesting cast to support these 5 - each "smaller" role filled with someone who brings something to the table that makes their character interesting. Liam Neeson, Robert Duvall, Collin Farrell, the always watchable Garrett Dillahunt and Jackie Weaver fill the film with "screen presence", power and strong characterizations that service the story. Special notice should be made for Daniel Kaluuya (Oscar nominated for GET OUT). His menacing "bad guy" ranks right up there on the list of "dudes you don't want to mess with". He was fascinating to watch - especially when he was doing "nothing" - you could see the animal swimming within him in the most still of moments.
All of these actors are directed with the Orchestral efficiency of McQueen - a director who knows what he's doing. He keeps the focus of his cameras where he needs to, sometimes eschewing the most obvious action to focus our attention elsewhere. The downside to McQueen is that he sometimes gets enamored with his beautiful pictures and atmosphere, so the film gets bogged down at times - especially in the first half - but all of this is in service to the larger story - a story that demands our attention.
The screenplay by McQueen and Flynn is full of plot twists and turns, of course, keeping you guessing throughout and concludes in a most satisfactory manner.
All in all a very fine time at the Cineplex. In this week of a myriad of items competing for your movie-going dollars, I would strongly recommend that you pick WIDOWS out of the pile and settle in for a good time..
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Max Payne (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Against the gritty, snow covered, and crime ridden streets of New York, one man is waging a battle for redemption and revenge. The man in Detective Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg), and following the murder of his wife and infant son, Payne has seen his life and career spin down an ever deepening black hole to the point where he is relegated to a basement office working on cold cases.
Max has become a creature of the night, and spends his off hours patrolling the grimy sections of the city looking for clues about the death of his wife and taking on all manner of the cities criminal elements to get to the truth which has so long eluded him.
While attempting to gain information from a former snitch, Max is introduced to the Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko), and her sister Mona (Mila Kunis). The fact that Mona is suspicious of Max from the start is of little concern to Natasha who follows Max back to his apartment and attempts to seduce him. Max quickly spurns her advances which causes Natasha to leave his apartment angry and unbeknownst to Max, steals his wallet in the process. Shortly after leaving Max’s apartment, Natasha is brutally murdered and when Max’s wallet is found at the scene, he becomes the lead suspect in the murder.
Soon after learning from his former partner that Natasha’s dead may be linked to the death of Max’s wife, Max becomes the subject of a city wide manhunt when his partner turns up dead which is attributed to Max going over the edge.
In a race against time, Max must get to the bottom of the deaths as well as solve his family’s murder and clear his good name. This will not be easy as Max must face the resources of a gigantic corporation as well as a crazed drug lord, and his colleagues on the police force.
Based on the popular video games series from Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms, Max Payne takes some of the games more prominent characters and themes and creates a new storyline. The bullet time ability that Max had in the game has been omitted and replaced with a few gun battles that are shot at times in slow motion, such as a well staged battle in an office building.
While the storyline and character development may be lacking, the film does a decent job of capturing the look and tone of the games, and Wahlberg is solid as the tormented lead character.
Backed by a solid supporting cast which includes Beau Bridges, Chris O’Donnell, and Ludacris, “Max Payne” is an enjoyable if flawed movie experience that makes up for its shortcomings with solid visuals and some great gun battles that come late in the film.
The picture and sound quality of the movie are very crisp and if you have the chance to enjoy the film in surround sound and HDTV I would highly suggest it.
The bonus features are very good and there is a great graphic book feature that delves more into the character of Max Payne’s wife and the events leading up to her murder.
Max has become a creature of the night, and spends his off hours patrolling the grimy sections of the city looking for clues about the death of his wife and taking on all manner of the cities criminal elements to get to the truth which has so long eluded him.
While attempting to gain information from a former snitch, Max is introduced to the Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko), and her sister Mona (Mila Kunis). The fact that Mona is suspicious of Max from the start is of little concern to Natasha who follows Max back to his apartment and attempts to seduce him. Max quickly spurns her advances which causes Natasha to leave his apartment angry and unbeknownst to Max, steals his wallet in the process. Shortly after leaving Max’s apartment, Natasha is brutally murdered and when Max’s wallet is found at the scene, he becomes the lead suspect in the murder.
Soon after learning from his former partner that Natasha’s dead may be linked to the death of Max’s wife, Max becomes the subject of a city wide manhunt when his partner turns up dead which is attributed to Max going over the edge.
In a race against time, Max must get to the bottom of the deaths as well as solve his family’s murder and clear his good name. This will not be easy as Max must face the resources of a gigantic corporation as well as a crazed drug lord, and his colleagues on the police force.
Based on the popular video games series from Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms, Max Payne takes some of the games more prominent characters and themes and creates a new storyline. The bullet time ability that Max had in the game has been omitted and replaced with a few gun battles that are shot at times in slow motion, such as a well staged battle in an office building.
While the storyline and character development may be lacking, the film does a decent job of capturing the look and tone of the games, and Wahlberg is solid as the tormented lead character.
Backed by a solid supporting cast which includes Beau Bridges, Chris O’Donnell, and Ludacris, “Max Payne” is an enjoyable if flawed movie experience that makes up for its shortcomings with solid visuals and some great gun battles that come late in the film.
The picture and sound quality of the movie are very crisp and if you have the chance to enjoy the film in surround sound and HDTV I would highly suggest it.
The bonus features are very good and there is a great graphic book feature that delves more into the character of Max Payne’s wife and the events leading up to her murder.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Chinese, Japanese, Dirty knees, look at these!
Shortly after the events of House of 1,000 Corpses, Sheriff Wydell and his band of deputies approach and surround the homestead occupied by everyone's favorite murderous, diabolical, psychotic family. Inside, lazy slumbering quickly turns to mounting a counter offensive when the family realizes what is about to happen. The ensuring shootout claims several victims before the aid of tear gas precedes a law enforcement home invasion. Unfortunately, only one family member is captured while Baby and Otis escape out the back. Baby calls their father, Captain Spaulding, to inform him of the pending doom on his way so he can meet up with them subsequently.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lincoln (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The history of this country is steeped in mystery and intrigue, but it’s fuzzy on the details. We cling to heroes of the past because we are jaded by the present. Lincoln, a new film from Steven Spielberg, comes to us at a time when there seems to be even more political strife than usual. (Or perhaps that’s just me getting older and actually paying attention.) Either way, I think this movie’s arrival on the silver screen is very timely, given the recent election.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Flight (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’m not good with dramas. I like to watch movies to escape reality and dramas are all about reminding you of the turmoil and awkwardness and unpredictability that is reality. But, only if they’re good. Dramas require an emotional response from the viewer, which can only be achieved through great performances, enhanced by story, music and editing. (don’t quote me I could be missing one). If one or more elements are missing, at best it’s an unexpected comedy, at worst you’ve just wasted time and money that you’ll never get back.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Tomorrow War (2021) in Movies
Aug 1, 2021
A rather impulsive watch on this one, other than one of those pre-Prime adverts I hadn't seen anything about it. But it looked intriguing.
The future arrives in the present in an event that's never been seen before, but it brings news of a war raging 30 years in the future.
Tomorrow War has an interesting idea behind it, but I decided early on that I would stop trying to think about the ramifications of everything happening. We watch the events unfold along with the characters, I found that annoying at the beginning as I was keen to get into the nitty gritty and it was taking its sweet time.
I felt that some of the interactions took shortcuts. A character will ask a question, get refused, but instantly be told the answer after a second half arsed enquiry. Yes it moves the story along, but not in a very satisfying way. At the same time, it throws in a selection of completely unnecessary interactions like it doesn't know exactly what it wants to achieve.
I would like to say that there was some acting that helped redeem the rollercoaster of Tomorrow War's story, but everything is "they were working with what they got". There wasn't always a lot.
Despite the opportunity for Chris Pratt to be a strong action lead, the set up doesn't really allow for it. Initially we get presented with him being a scientist, when the action begins we're given the soldier angle. I'm not saying people can't have to sides to them, but it felt very strange to swap it up. It seemed entirely based off the need to have a scientific element later in the story, but with so many characters, it felt odd to have those elements in one person when there was plenty of scope to have two different people, one for each role.
With all these characters it's hard to differentiate between them... but don't worry, the costume department have a solution to that... I don't want to ruin the surprise, but it's truly ridiculous. There's very little sense to it, and I can't fathom how anyone signed it off.
The effects didn't really bother me, it all seemed to work, nothing stood out for negative reasons. With so many other questionable things happening, that was a bit of a relief really. The creatures were kind of familiar and just creepy enough to work, their movement helped with that, but overall there really didn't feel like enough of them in the film to warrant the effort.
I liked the idea behind Tomorrow War, but while I tried to switch my brain off, I came out with questions... so many questions. They just popped in there. And if it wasn't questions, it was predictions that were often right. With all of this I haven't even dealt with the ending. Everything before the conclusion wasn't bad, the ending was rushed and didn't fit with what had come before. The balance was definitely off, and I think with some changes this could really have knocked it out of the park.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-tomorrow-war-movie-review.html
The future arrives in the present in an event that's never been seen before, but it brings news of a war raging 30 years in the future.
Tomorrow War has an interesting idea behind it, but I decided early on that I would stop trying to think about the ramifications of everything happening. We watch the events unfold along with the characters, I found that annoying at the beginning as I was keen to get into the nitty gritty and it was taking its sweet time.
I felt that some of the interactions took shortcuts. A character will ask a question, get refused, but instantly be told the answer after a second half arsed enquiry. Yes it moves the story along, but not in a very satisfying way. At the same time, it throws in a selection of completely unnecessary interactions like it doesn't know exactly what it wants to achieve.
I would like to say that there was some acting that helped redeem the rollercoaster of Tomorrow War's story, but everything is "they were working with what they got". There wasn't always a lot.
Despite the opportunity for Chris Pratt to be a strong action lead, the set up doesn't really allow for it. Initially we get presented with him being a scientist, when the action begins we're given the soldier angle. I'm not saying people can't have to sides to them, but it felt very strange to swap it up. It seemed entirely based off the need to have a scientific element later in the story, but with so many characters, it felt odd to have those elements in one person when there was plenty of scope to have two different people, one for each role.
With all these characters it's hard to differentiate between them... but don't worry, the costume department have a solution to that... I don't want to ruin the surprise, but it's truly ridiculous. There's very little sense to it, and I can't fathom how anyone signed it off.
The effects didn't really bother me, it all seemed to work, nothing stood out for negative reasons. With so many other questionable things happening, that was a bit of a relief really. The creatures were kind of familiar and just creepy enough to work, their movement helped with that, but overall there really didn't feel like enough of them in the film to warrant the effort.
I liked the idea behind Tomorrow War, but while I tried to switch my brain off, I came out with questions... so many questions. They just popped in there. And if it wasn't questions, it was predictions that were often right. With all of this I haven't even dealt with the ending. Everything before the conclusion wasn't bad, the ending was rushed and didn't fit with what had come before. The balance was definitely off, and I think with some changes this could really have knocked it out of the park.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-tomorrow-war-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Rare Beasts (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Directorial debuts are tough, and it gives people a chance to establish their personal style. Sadly for me, Billie Piper’s first film had a style that didn’t sit well with me at all. She was heavily involved in the project; directing, writing and starring in it, but her unique first film is perhaps a bit too quirky.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Eternal Rider (Lords of Deliverance, #1, Demonica, #6) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I loved that this book took a concept that I am very familiar with, the Four Horsemen from Revelation, and turned it on its head. For all of the repetitiveness of fantasy fiction using the same species over and over again - from mermaids to vampires - the horsemen are definitely new vehicles for enticing literature.
The background of the story is that all of the horsemen once lead human lives, but were cursed to become the horsemen after reacting very badly to the news that Lilith is their mother. Another interesting quirk on the common tale is that one of them is actually female, Limos. The four are destined to either fulfill the Biblical prophecy or the demonic equivalent - which none of them want to do. In addition, each of them have a unique method by which they fall into the demonic prophecy's designated role and must fight to keep said method from playing out.
Ares, whom the story says the Greek god of war is named for, is destined to become War should the being bearing his seal, or agimortus, dies. Thanks to Cara, a human, inadvertently crossing paths with a hellhound, she becomes the bearer of the agimortus. Luckily, she has a few tricks of her own to aid her in her new role. I liked Cara and the way she seemed to blossom despite her captivity and impending death, as well as how easily she could stand up to Ares. I would have liked a little more character development, as it did not feel like her character arc was complete.
Ares is also an interesting character. Even though he is drawn to wars and violence, with his very presence inciting violence and rage among humans, Cara is immune to this ability. Because of how her presence weakens him, Ares shows a vulnerability characteristic of the humanity he left behind thousands of years ago. Around Cara, he is simply a normal guy falling in love, and the way he attempts to "macho-up" to deal with it is positively adorable.
The violence in the book is both believable and quite gritty. Of course, the horsemen's supernatural abilities of strength and healing allow it to be especially intense and dramatic. The sexual scenes in the book are also quite graphic and detailed, without feeling cheesy or awkward.
The laws built into Ione's world of horsemen, angels, and demons is complex without being confusing. The reader is introduced to its structure piece by piece throughout the novel without being bombarded by the details, and all of the pieces fit together nicely. In addition, Ione even includes a glossary at the beginning of the book to help the reader become more accustomed to the world.
The other siblings are all unique and show lots of promise for future books in the series. Thanatos, destined to become Death, has a seductive air of mystery that had me wondering several times throughout the book if something would occur between him and Cara. The sister, Limos, destined to be Famine, also shows many interesting characteristics, such as a certain hidden madness that she struggles to keep leashed, and the chemistry she shares with Arik is palpable. Even though Reseph becomes Pestilence early in the book, I have a feeling he may prove to be the most interesting of the siblings under a theme of redemption. I only have to wait till December for Immortal Rider (Lords of Deliverance), which centers on Limos, to find out what happens next!
The background of the story is that all of the horsemen once lead human lives, but were cursed to become the horsemen after reacting very badly to the news that Lilith is their mother. Another interesting quirk on the common tale is that one of them is actually female, Limos. The four are destined to either fulfill the Biblical prophecy or the demonic equivalent - which none of them want to do. In addition, each of them have a unique method by which they fall into the demonic prophecy's designated role and must fight to keep said method from playing out.
Ares, whom the story says the Greek god of war is named for, is destined to become War should the being bearing his seal, or agimortus, dies. Thanks to Cara, a human, inadvertently crossing paths with a hellhound, she becomes the bearer of the agimortus. Luckily, she has a few tricks of her own to aid her in her new role. I liked Cara and the way she seemed to blossom despite her captivity and impending death, as well as how easily she could stand up to Ares. I would have liked a little more character development, as it did not feel like her character arc was complete.
Ares is also an interesting character. Even though he is drawn to wars and violence, with his very presence inciting violence and rage among humans, Cara is immune to this ability. Because of how her presence weakens him, Ares shows a vulnerability characteristic of the humanity he left behind thousands of years ago. Around Cara, he is simply a normal guy falling in love, and the way he attempts to "macho-up" to deal with it is positively adorable.
The violence in the book is both believable and quite gritty. Of course, the horsemen's supernatural abilities of strength and healing allow it to be especially intense and dramatic. The sexual scenes in the book are also quite graphic and detailed, without feeling cheesy or awkward.
The laws built into Ione's world of horsemen, angels, and demons is complex without being confusing. The reader is introduced to its structure piece by piece throughout the novel without being bombarded by the details, and all of the pieces fit together nicely. In addition, Ione even includes a glossary at the beginning of the book to help the reader become more accustomed to the world.
The other siblings are all unique and show lots of promise for future books in the series. Thanatos, destined to become Death, has a seductive air of mystery that had me wondering several times throughout the book if something would occur between him and Cara. The sister, Limos, destined to be Famine, also shows many interesting characteristics, such as a certain hidden madness that she struggles to keep leashed, and the chemistry she shares with Arik is palpable. Even though Reseph becomes Pestilence early in the book, I have a feeling he may prove to be the most interesting of the siblings under a theme of redemption. I only have to wait till December for Immortal Rider (Lords of Deliverance), which centers on Limos, to find out what happens next!