Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated The Last American Vampire in Books
May 25, 2018
A Rare Case of The Sequel Being Better than the First Book
I loved this book. Honestly, I'm not certain that I didn't like it even more than "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." One of my favorite things about both of these books is that Smith writes them like history books (complete with footnotes and actual photographs of things like Teddy Roosevelt posing with an elephant he'd just killed and Jack Ruby with his gun jammed into Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach). The facts he uses in his book are so... FACTUAL! I mean, seriously, the only thing keeping a person from reading these books as absolute truth is the fact that s/he doesn't believe vampires actually exist. But if a person DID believe in vampires? Oh yes, everything in these books is absolutely plausible. I can honestly see some confused people who are on the fence about whether or not vampires are real reading this book, finishing it, slamming it down, and saying, "I KNEW IT! I -KNEW- THEY WERE REAL!" Ha. Seriously though, the realism in these books is what makes them so much fun and so wonderful.
The thing I like about this book so much -- the thing that very possibly makes me enjoy this one more than the original -- is all that cameos in the book -- Mark Twain, Howard Hughes, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, Henry Irving, Eliot Ness.... I mean, HELLO?! What a stellar, badass cast of cameo characters. Although, honestly, "cameo" is not the most appropriate word because some of these characters played pretty major roles in the novel. It was fantastic. Viewing Howard Hughes' eccentricities and insanities through vampire-colored glasses is simply... perfect. It doesn't seemed forced at all. Wait, after a plane crash, Howard Hughes was turned into a vampire? ... Yeah, I can see that. That makes perfect sense. And it DOES! It is such an easy transition from mentally ill billionaire to crazy vampire. Not such a stretch. And Rasputin? OH yeah. That guy was TOTALLY a vampire. :-p
Anyway. Now I'm kind of rambling. But seriously, this book was fantastic, so much fun. There wasn't a single part of this book that I didn't love.
The thing I like about this book so much -- the thing that very possibly makes me enjoy this one more than the original -- is all that cameos in the book -- Mark Twain, Howard Hughes, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, Henry Irving, Eliot Ness.... I mean, HELLO?! What a stellar, badass cast of cameo characters. Although, honestly, "cameo" is not the most appropriate word because some of these characters played pretty major roles in the novel. It was fantastic. Viewing Howard Hughes' eccentricities and insanities through vampire-colored glasses is simply... perfect. It doesn't seemed forced at all. Wait, after a plane crash, Howard Hughes was turned into a vampire? ... Yeah, I can see that. That makes perfect sense. And it DOES! It is such an easy transition from mentally ill billionaire to crazy vampire. Not such a stretch. And Rasputin? OH yeah. That guy was TOTALLY a vampire. :-p
Anyway. Now I'm kind of rambling. But seriously, this book was fantastic, so much fun. There wasn't a single part of this book that I didn't love.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Second Siege (The Tapestry, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a title="The Second Siege by Henry H. Neff" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/05/review-the-second-siege-by-henry-h-neff.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Owls
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste
In the second book to The Tapestry series, Astaroth has already been released from his confinement and is causing trouble in the outside world with his allies. Max McDaniels and his roommate David Menlo are traveling to different worlds on a quest to acquire the dangerous Book of Thoth before Astaroth gets to it first.
I'm sorry if I can't help but compare the series to Harry Potter (actually, I can't help but compare a lot of books to another book/series...). Both series are just so... similar in so many ways. It may sound ironic, but in my humble opinion, Astaroth isn't that... villainy. I mean, sure, he's cunning and evil when necessary, but I'm pretty sure that if Voldy and Astaroth had a face off, Voldy would probably crush him. Big time. Even if he's noseless. Basically because Voldy is evil 24/7.
<img src="http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll152/Contele_Draqula/VoldemortandDeathEaters.jpg"; width="200" height="143" />
On the other hand, Astaroth's "minions" are well... completely the opposite of the Death Eaters. The Death Eaters are pretty loyal, but there's always these little loose knots here and there when it comes to loyalty. Apparently, Astaroth's minions are too loyal to the demon, that there are practically no loose ends at all. One big happy family in taking over the world? Possibly... but don't take my word for granted. I may be wrong for all I know and all of his minions will soon overthrow him as leader of Malevolency.
In a nutshell, you can say I'm sadly disappointed that Astaroth just doesn't seem like a villain at certain times. I don't know. Maybe he'll be more evil later in the series, but for now, I think I'll categorize him a bit as Mr. Nice Guy. I'll nominate him as Dr. Evil II when he has more of the muahaha added in (okay, not exactly muahaha, but closer).
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OjrbRW6e1VE/THP3sett2tI/AAAAAAAAFBw/rsQC8kBELBw/s200/Dr_Evil.jpg"; />
So, the ending. Er, not exactly. Kind of a happy-sad ending, but not exactly an ending that will make me emotional that I'll need a Kleenex in hand and hide someplace so no one sees me crying, because if I get seen crying, it'll be as embarrassing as saying something in an awkward silence.. But I'm pretty glad that Max and his father saw someone they deeply cared for at least one more time after so many years. It's also not an ending where there's this lovely cliffhanger that keeps you at the edge of the seat, eager to read the next book.
As much as I hate cliffhangers, I just feel that there needs to be some sort of cliff waiting to catch more "victims" at the end when it comes to a series (maybe I'm so used to that frame of mind...), which I find missing in The Second Siege. Though hopefully I'm just missing that cliffhanger and just need to dig deeper...
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Owls
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste
In the second book to The Tapestry series, Astaroth has already been released from his confinement and is causing trouble in the outside world with his allies. Max McDaniels and his roommate David Menlo are traveling to different worlds on a quest to acquire the dangerous Book of Thoth before Astaroth gets to it first.
I'm sorry if I can't help but compare the series to Harry Potter (actually, I can't help but compare a lot of books to another book/series...). Both series are just so... similar in so many ways. It may sound ironic, but in my humble opinion, Astaroth isn't that... villainy. I mean, sure, he's cunning and evil when necessary, but I'm pretty sure that if Voldy and Astaroth had a face off, Voldy would probably crush him. Big time. Even if he's noseless. Basically because Voldy is evil 24/7.
<img src="http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll152/Contele_Draqula/VoldemortandDeathEaters.jpg"; width="200" height="143" />
On the other hand, Astaroth's "minions" are well... completely the opposite of the Death Eaters. The Death Eaters are pretty loyal, but there's always these little loose knots here and there when it comes to loyalty. Apparently, Astaroth's minions are too loyal to the demon, that there are practically no loose ends at all. One big happy family in taking over the world? Possibly... but don't take my word for granted. I may be wrong for all I know and all of his minions will soon overthrow him as leader of Malevolency.
In a nutshell, you can say I'm sadly disappointed that Astaroth just doesn't seem like a villain at certain times. I don't know. Maybe he'll be more evil later in the series, but for now, I think I'll categorize him a bit as Mr. Nice Guy. I'll nominate him as Dr. Evil II when he has more of the muahaha added in (okay, not exactly muahaha, but closer).
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OjrbRW6e1VE/THP3sett2tI/AAAAAAAAFBw/rsQC8kBELBw/s200/Dr_Evil.jpg"; />
So, the ending. Er, not exactly. Kind of a happy-sad ending, but not exactly an ending that will make me emotional that I'll need a Kleenex in hand and hide someplace so no one sees me crying, because if I get seen crying, it'll be as embarrassing as saying something in an awkward silence.. But I'm pretty glad that Max and his father saw someone they deeply cared for at least one more time after so many years. It's also not an ending where there's this lovely cliffhanger that keeps you at the edge of the seat, eager to read the next book.
As much as I hate cliffhangers, I just feel that there needs to be some sort of cliff waiting to catch more "victims" at the end when it comes to a series (maybe I'm so used to that frame of mind...), which I find missing in The Second Siege. Though hopefully I'm just missing that cliffhanger and just need to dig deeper...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to admit, I knew nothing about The Man from U.N.C.L.E going into the movie, other than it was based on a TV show from the 60’s. It had flown under my radar for most of the year, overshadowed by highly-anticipated titles with colons, i.e., Avengers: Age of Ultron, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. When the screener was scheduled I was actually tempted to assign it to another reviewer. Then I watched the trailer and saw Henry Cavill (Superman) was one of the stars. At the risk of sounding shallow, that changed my mind.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
Lindsay (1693 KP) rated An Amish Christmas Bakery (4 Stories) in Books
Nov 6, 2019
Cookies and Cheer by Amy Clipston:
Alyssa Byler dreaming of the next holiday window display for her work. As she draws out her idea for the window display and then she gets permission to create it. She needs to ask someone to make the cookie cutters for her. As Alyssa Byler get more ideas. Will they be all good. She asks Kyle Smoker to make the Cookie Cutters will happen when there is more demand?
Alyssa Byler seems to get pulled into the hustle and bustle and forget the most important thing about her lifestyle. As the season approves and gets busier. Everyone is trying to remind her of what import at this time when Christmas is coming.
Will she learn it and ask to be forgiven. Kyle and Alyssa's relationship grows. Will they make it through the rough patch. Celebrate the coming to Christ as it meant to be. Will Alyssa ask the one person to help give her a solution for her to be with her family and Kyle and help her friend Denise?
Loaves of Love by Beth Wiseman:
What would you do if you were left in charge of the bakery during the holiday season? Well, Katie is and she seems to be seeing someone. Though we learn that she is the only girl in a family of eight. So she got to help once her mother is put on bed rest after surgery.
Henry has finally has been able to feel up to ask Katie out on a date. Will, he finally asks her or will it be too late? Henry seems to have some issues with his feelings. He is a family friend of Katie and her family.
There seems to be a woman that comes into the bakery and asks Katie if she can get her order and have it ready by Friday. As she was about the work on the order and miss lunch when David comes in take Katie out to dinner. What will she do?
It seems things get more interesting as the story goes on. What happens between Katie and David? What will happen between Claire and Henry? Katie's brother Jonas stops by as well. What will happen when Katie takes the new oven gift from David?
The woman seems to have ordered twelve loaves of bread. What she does with them. You will be surprised. Katie seems to want her wood ovens after trying it and some mishaps. This woman seems to give Katie a loaf of bread.
The woman talks about the number of twelve. There seem to be quite a few things in the bible the number twelve. She just says the lord was to give it to her and that she calls the bread “Loaves of Love” and then leaves the bakery. You will not believe how it ends when Katie sees another loaf of bread on the counter?
Melting Hearts by Kathleen Fuller:
Have you ever thought you were friends with someone and it turns out they are not your friend? Well, It seems this is the case with Mattie. Does Mattie think she would be like her best friend? Though maybe she should decide for herself.
Mattie is asked to come to help her aunt when she calls her. Though she after a few weeks. She finds out that Peter is coming. Though her aunt and uncle doe not know she strongly dislikes him. Though she believes Peter is horrible.
Peter arrives and things get more interesting between Mattie and Peter. Does Mattie know her friend is using her? Mattie seems to believe that Peter is someone that bad and not to be trusted? But maybe he's a nice guy but can not admit it. Mattie seems to tear between her beliefs and her feelings.
Peter comes to help out with an additional job that Atlee as offered him. Peter seems to be around Mattie. You will be surprised at how this ends. Who will trust who? Mattie's aunt Caroline and her Uncle Atlee get some unexpected news. They are shocked by the news. I do not want to give away the ending to either of the couples mentioned. Is Lizzy more mean and curl and why?
Cakes and Kisses by Kelly Irvin:
How would you feel if you were picked on when doing your job? It boys that do it and find out they do it on purpose. Well, Ambrose gets treated differently. Most everyone likes him. You will be surprised to learn about him.
Martha seems to be at a loss when she finds out her mother passes away. Leaving her and her sister Elsie and her younger siblings to care for. Martha seems to have a bit hard time with the loss of her mother. But will she find love?
Ambrose and Martha seem like they like each other. What will happen when they want to spend more time together? Martha wants to help Ambrose learn to read. Will happen. Burke and Carina seem to want to help her and Ambrose out as well.
Alyssa Byler dreaming of the next holiday window display for her work. As she draws out her idea for the window display and then she gets permission to create it. She needs to ask someone to make the cookie cutters for her. As Alyssa Byler get more ideas. Will they be all good. She asks Kyle Smoker to make the Cookie Cutters will happen when there is more demand?
Alyssa Byler seems to get pulled into the hustle and bustle and forget the most important thing about her lifestyle. As the season approves and gets busier. Everyone is trying to remind her of what import at this time when Christmas is coming.
Will she learn it and ask to be forgiven. Kyle and Alyssa's relationship grows. Will they make it through the rough patch. Celebrate the coming to Christ as it meant to be. Will Alyssa ask the one person to help give her a solution for her to be with her family and Kyle and help her friend Denise?
Loaves of Love by Beth Wiseman:
What would you do if you were left in charge of the bakery during the holiday season? Well, Katie is and she seems to be seeing someone. Though we learn that she is the only girl in a family of eight. So she got to help once her mother is put on bed rest after surgery.
Henry has finally has been able to feel up to ask Katie out on a date. Will, he finally asks her or will it be too late? Henry seems to have some issues with his feelings. He is a family friend of Katie and her family.
There seems to be a woman that comes into the bakery and asks Katie if she can get her order and have it ready by Friday. As she was about the work on the order and miss lunch when David comes in take Katie out to dinner. What will she do?
It seems things get more interesting as the story goes on. What happens between Katie and David? What will happen between Claire and Henry? Katie's brother Jonas stops by as well. What will happen when Katie takes the new oven gift from David?
The woman seems to have ordered twelve loaves of bread. What she does with them. You will be surprised. Katie seems to want her wood ovens after trying it and some mishaps. This woman seems to give Katie a loaf of bread.
The woman talks about the number of twelve. There seem to be quite a few things in the bible the number twelve. She just says the lord was to give it to her and that she calls the bread “Loaves of Love” and then leaves the bakery. You will not believe how it ends when Katie sees another loaf of bread on the counter?
Melting Hearts by Kathleen Fuller:
Have you ever thought you were friends with someone and it turns out they are not your friend? Well, It seems this is the case with Mattie. Does Mattie think she would be like her best friend? Though maybe she should decide for herself.
Mattie is asked to come to help her aunt when she calls her. Though she after a few weeks. She finds out that Peter is coming. Though her aunt and uncle doe not know she strongly dislikes him. Though she believes Peter is horrible.
Peter arrives and things get more interesting between Mattie and Peter. Does Mattie know her friend is using her? Mattie seems to believe that Peter is someone that bad and not to be trusted? But maybe he's a nice guy but can not admit it. Mattie seems to tear between her beliefs and her feelings.
Peter comes to help out with an additional job that Atlee as offered him. Peter seems to be around Mattie. You will be surprised at how this ends. Who will trust who? Mattie's aunt Caroline and her Uncle Atlee get some unexpected news. They are shocked by the news. I do not want to give away the ending to either of the couples mentioned. Is Lizzy more mean and curl and why?
Cakes and Kisses by Kelly Irvin:
How would you feel if you were picked on when doing your job? It boys that do it and find out they do it on purpose. Well, Ambrose gets treated differently. Most everyone likes him. You will be surprised to learn about him.
Martha seems to be at a loss when she finds out her mother passes away. Leaving her and her sister Elsie and her younger siblings to care for. Martha seems to have a bit hard time with the loss of her mother. But will she find love?
Ambrose and Martha seem like they like each other. What will happen when they want to spend more time together? Martha wants to help Ambrose learn to read. Will happen. Burke and Carina seem to want to help her and Ambrose out as well.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Labor Day (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Director Jason Reitman is no stranger to obtaining a few awards from his varied career, with films like Juno and Up in the Air under his belt, you would be forgiven for thinking that he could put himself on autopilot – however his latest offering Labor Day stays well clear of such drama.
Starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin, the film stays on the right side of touching without feeling overly sentimental and cheesy. But is it worth a watch?
Following the story of Adele (Winslet) and her son Henry (Gattlin Griffith) as they comes to terms with repairing their lives after an unsuccessful marriage, Labor Day leaves the story and plot of Joyce Maynard’s hugely popular novel to the audience, who piece things together themselves, culminating in a pleasing if slightly clumsy final act.
Josh Brolin stars as Frank Chambers, an escaped murderer looking for somewhere tolabor-day-poster1 lay low whilst the police continue searching for him. Brolin is a master of playing the bad guy gone good and his performance here is no exception to that rule. His convict-like scowls are brilliantly juxtaposed with scenes involving him cooking and baking, leaving the viewer slightly perplexed by his real intentions – at the start that is anyway.
As the story takes place over a weekend, the film does feel a little drawn out in places but this adds to its simplistic charm, with the characters and their sublime acting doing most of the work.
Winslet is excellent as Adele, a woman so heartbroken and terrified by the painful effects of love she no longer leaves the house. Her fragility is exceptionally intense; her hands and facial expressions talk more than words ever could and this is a theme throughout the film. I wouldn’t be surprised if Winslet is nominated for an Oscar at next year’s awards.
However, by far the standout is Gattlin Griffith’s performance as young Henry. Here is a boy who would do anything for his mother. His transition from moody teenager to vulnerable young adult is beautiful to watch and again, his facial expressions speak volumes.
As the police close in on Frank’s location and Adele and Henry’s behaviour becomes ever more suspicious, Labor Day becomes increasingly intense in a ‘will they won’t they’ kind of way. As much as the film drives home the simplicity of its intentions, you can’t helped but get sucked into their predicament and this, along with the acting, is where it stuns most.
Unfortunately, the simple nature of the directing and cinematography leaves a lot of room for other areas to fill, and this doesn’t quite happen.
The score is mind-numbingly dull which is a true shame. Rolfe Kent has created some stunning pieces of music for films across the decades including his Golden Globe nominated work on Sideways, not forgetting the excellent score in The Wedding Crashers. Despite some lift in the latter half of the picture, it remains a relatively music-free affair.
Tobey Maguire’s narration is also a little dull. Those of you familiar with the Spider-Man trilogy will know how irritating Maguire’s voice can be, and unfortunately it’s the case here too.
Overall though, Labor Day fills the void in between the magic of the Christmas blockbuster and the frantic summer season which is approaching thick and fast. Filled with some fine performances from the three lead actors and a story which really makes you believe in second chances, it’s an utterly compelling and emotional spring flick. Only the poor score and uninspiring cinematography lets it down.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/27/labor-day-review/
Starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin, the film stays on the right side of touching without feeling overly sentimental and cheesy. But is it worth a watch?
Following the story of Adele (Winslet) and her son Henry (Gattlin Griffith) as they comes to terms with repairing their lives after an unsuccessful marriage, Labor Day leaves the story and plot of Joyce Maynard’s hugely popular novel to the audience, who piece things together themselves, culminating in a pleasing if slightly clumsy final act.
Josh Brolin stars as Frank Chambers, an escaped murderer looking for somewhere tolabor-day-poster1 lay low whilst the police continue searching for him. Brolin is a master of playing the bad guy gone good and his performance here is no exception to that rule. His convict-like scowls are brilliantly juxtaposed with scenes involving him cooking and baking, leaving the viewer slightly perplexed by his real intentions – at the start that is anyway.
As the story takes place over a weekend, the film does feel a little drawn out in places but this adds to its simplistic charm, with the characters and their sublime acting doing most of the work.
Winslet is excellent as Adele, a woman so heartbroken and terrified by the painful effects of love she no longer leaves the house. Her fragility is exceptionally intense; her hands and facial expressions talk more than words ever could and this is a theme throughout the film. I wouldn’t be surprised if Winslet is nominated for an Oscar at next year’s awards.
However, by far the standout is Gattlin Griffith’s performance as young Henry. Here is a boy who would do anything for his mother. His transition from moody teenager to vulnerable young adult is beautiful to watch and again, his facial expressions speak volumes.
As the police close in on Frank’s location and Adele and Henry’s behaviour becomes ever more suspicious, Labor Day becomes increasingly intense in a ‘will they won’t they’ kind of way. As much as the film drives home the simplicity of its intentions, you can’t helped but get sucked into their predicament and this, along with the acting, is where it stuns most.
Unfortunately, the simple nature of the directing and cinematography leaves a lot of room for other areas to fill, and this doesn’t quite happen.
The score is mind-numbingly dull which is a true shame. Rolfe Kent has created some stunning pieces of music for films across the decades including his Golden Globe nominated work on Sideways, not forgetting the excellent score in The Wedding Crashers. Despite some lift in the latter half of the picture, it remains a relatively music-free affair.
Tobey Maguire’s narration is also a little dull. Those of you familiar with the Spider-Man trilogy will know how irritating Maguire’s voice can be, and unfortunately it’s the case here too.
Overall though, Labor Day fills the void in between the magic of the Christmas blockbuster and the frantic summer season which is approaching thick and fast. Filled with some fine performances from the three lead actors and a story which really makes you believe in second chances, it’s an utterly compelling and emotional spring flick. Only the poor score and uninspiring cinematography lets it down.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/27/labor-day-review/
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Winchester: The House That Ghosts Built (2018) in Movies
Feb 2, 2018
It was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, when I saw the trailer for Winchester, I was a little intrigued. Not a lot, but a little. A bit more so when I realized that Helen Mirren was in it. Though I can’t say I could name anything else she’s been in off-hand, I did recognize that she had a bit of weight behind her name. Her presence, combined with Jason Clarke (who I recognize more as a “Hey, it’s that guy” than actually recognize) gave me some hope for the movie. Hence stealing away on a Friday afternoon, paying entirely too much money for a ticket and popcorn to get the big-screen experience.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.