Search
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.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Oof
I had a horrible horrible feeling that Justice League was going to be rubbish. After the double whammy of raw sewage that was BvS and Suicide Squad, my hopes for a third ensemble film weren't high at all.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
An Amish Christmas Bakery (4 Stories)
Beth Wiseman, Amy Clipston, Kelly Irvin and Kathleen Fuller
8.7
Rate It
Book
Cookies and Cheer by Amy Clipston: Alyssa Byler dreaming of the next holiday window display for...
Amish Romance Amish Fiction
Uptown Oracle (24 KP) rated Clockwork Angel in Books
Jun 30, 2017
Clare exceeds expectations with Clockwork Angel
Clockwork Angel is the first in a trilogy of books. This series is a prequel to The Mortal Instruments, also written by Cassandra Clare. Tessa traveled to London to live with her brother, when he appears missing she is captured. Saved by Will, Tessa lives within the institute with the Shadowhunters helping to find Nate, whilst also finding out what the Magister's evil plan is.
I've heard so many times that The Infernal Devices is so much better than the Mortal Instruments. In comparison I can definitely agree the writing and overall plot is improved. The main issue I had was that in some cases, it was too similar to The Mortal Instruments. My instant thought was Will was similar to Jace although I'm unsure if this was intentional or not. The love triangle was also reminiscent of Clare's previous work.
I enjoyed that Clockwork Angel was set in London rather than New York. I was getting fairly bored of being focused on New York so this gave us a chance to see a new institute. The different location and different time means the institute is extremely different to the one in TMI.
The big question of who is the Magister? in the first chapter was important in the book. I found it both predictable and unpredictable. If Pretty Little Liars has told me anything, if a character claims it's one person, it's probably not them. I was however surprised of who it actually was. So well played, Cassandra Clare.
One of the big improvements is that the adults actually take action. In TMI, there were so many times the teenagers acted purely because the adults weren't doing anything. I was so tired of the adults being incompetent that Charlotte and Henry were a welcome surprise. They also really tried to help Tessa find Nate immediately. There weren't multiple meetings with the Clave before they could do anything.
Clockwork Angel seemed to pick up a lot quicker than TMI and kept pace. The fighting scenes were written better. Less filler content was needed as we already know the world. Although there was a love triangle, a lot less content was put towards building on it. It seemed a lot more like a fantasy than a romance.
Please don't comment any spoilers as I haven't finished the other books yet. But I had a weird thought about Tessa's name being Gray. As the dark sisters are called Black and Dark, does the inclusion of the name Gray fit there? Is this an insight into who she will become? Or who she 'could' become if she is a bad guy? I just thought it was odd to use a name so similar.
I've heard so many times that The Infernal Devices is so much better than the Mortal Instruments. In comparison I can definitely agree the writing and overall plot is improved. The main issue I had was that in some cases, it was too similar to The Mortal Instruments. My instant thought was Will was similar to Jace although I'm unsure if this was intentional or not. The love triangle was also reminiscent of Clare's previous work.
I enjoyed that Clockwork Angel was set in London rather than New York. I was getting fairly bored of being focused on New York so this gave us a chance to see a new institute. The different location and different time means the institute is extremely different to the one in TMI.
The big question of who is the Magister? in the first chapter was important in the book. I found it both predictable and unpredictable. If Pretty Little Liars has told me anything, if a character claims it's one person, it's probably not them. I was however surprised of who it actually was. So well played, Cassandra Clare.
One of the big improvements is that the adults actually take action. In TMI, there were so many times the teenagers acted purely because the adults weren't doing anything. I was so tired of the adults being incompetent that Charlotte and Henry were a welcome surprise. They also really tried to help Tessa find Nate immediately. There weren't multiple meetings with the Clave before they could do anything.
Clockwork Angel seemed to pick up a lot quicker than TMI and kept pace. The fighting scenes were written better. Less filler content was needed as we already know the world. Although there was a love triangle, a lot less content was put towards building on it. It seemed a lot more like a fantasy than a romance.
Please don't comment any spoilers as I haven't finished the other books yet. But I had a weird thought about Tessa's name being Gray. As the dark sisters are called Black and Dark, does the inclusion of the name Gray fit there? Is this an insight into who she will become? Or who she 'could' become if she is a bad guy? I just thought it was odd to use a name so similar.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Super (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I first heard about Super, written and directed by James Gunn, my first thought was “Dwight (from The Office) will be a superhero?” However what I saw on the screen was anything but Dwight, it was 75% awesome and 25% “I can’t believe they did that!”
The film begins with Frank (excellently played by Rainn Wilson) happily married to Sarah (Liv Tyler) who is a recovering drug addict. The happiness is shattered when Sarah begins using again, thanks to Jacques the drug dealer (Kevin Bacon) and then one day she disappears. Frank searches for Sarah and eventually finds her under the control of Jacques. Unable to get her away from Jacques, Frank goes to the police for help. Unfortunately because Sarah left on her own accord, no law has been broken (except for the drug stuff) so they are unable to help him.
Frank tries to move on, but without Sarah life seems meaningless. Then in his darkest hour he has a vision of The Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion). Heeding the vision, Frank becomes The Crimson Bolt, pledges to fight crime and to save Sarah. There is just one small problem – Frank has no idea how to be a superhero. Research is needed, so off to the comic book store he goes, of course, and there he meets Libby (Ellen Page). Libby advises him which comics to read that have superheroes who do not have powers. Armed with this knowledge, The Crimson Bolt officially begins fighting crime in the most unusual of ways and not too long after, Libby becomes Boltie, his trusted, sexy sidekick.
This very entertaining, action-filled, dark comedy has more twists and turns than a game of Chutes and Ladders, and it will keep you glued to the screen until the end. Will they save the city from villainy? Will they save Sarah’s bacon? (Sorry, with Kevin Bacon playing the bad guy I couldn’t resist.)
Super has a different take on the superhero genre than what I’ve seen in past movies. Only Rainn Wilson could have properly portrayed the uniqueness that is Frank/Crimson Bolt and the same goes for Ellen Page in regards to Libby/Boltie (possibly the best sidekick ever). To make a long review short, let me sum up this way, everyone in the movie no matter the length of their part did an amazing job in their role. With that said, my only wish was that the story would have allowed for more screen time for Gregg Henry (Detective John Felkner) and a musical number for Fillion’s Holy Avenger. if you liked Fillion as Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog, then you’ll love him in this role. But those things would have most likely thrown off the perfect balance of action, humor and character interaction that made this movie so enjoyable.
The film begins with Frank (excellently played by Rainn Wilson) happily married to Sarah (Liv Tyler) who is a recovering drug addict. The happiness is shattered when Sarah begins using again, thanks to Jacques the drug dealer (Kevin Bacon) and then one day she disappears. Frank searches for Sarah and eventually finds her under the control of Jacques. Unable to get her away from Jacques, Frank goes to the police for help. Unfortunately because Sarah left on her own accord, no law has been broken (except for the drug stuff) so they are unable to help him.
Frank tries to move on, but without Sarah life seems meaningless. Then in his darkest hour he has a vision of The Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion). Heeding the vision, Frank becomes The Crimson Bolt, pledges to fight crime and to save Sarah. There is just one small problem – Frank has no idea how to be a superhero. Research is needed, so off to the comic book store he goes, of course, and there he meets Libby (Ellen Page). Libby advises him which comics to read that have superheroes who do not have powers. Armed with this knowledge, The Crimson Bolt officially begins fighting crime in the most unusual of ways and not too long after, Libby becomes Boltie, his trusted, sexy sidekick.
This very entertaining, action-filled, dark comedy has more twists and turns than a game of Chutes and Ladders, and it will keep you glued to the screen until the end. Will they save the city from villainy? Will they save Sarah’s bacon? (Sorry, with Kevin Bacon playing the bad guy I couldn’t resist.)
Super has a different take on the superhero genre than what I’ve seen in past movies. Only Rainn Wilson could have properly portrayed the uniqueness that is Frank/Crimson Bolt and the same goes for Ellen Page in regards to Libby/Boltie (possibly the best sidekick ever). To make a long review short, let me sum up this way, everyone in the movie no matter the length of their part did an amazing job in their role. With that said, my only wish was that the story would have allowed for more screen time for Gregg Henry (Detective John Felkner) and a musical number for Fillion’s Holy Avenger. if you liked Fillion as Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog, then you’ll love him in this role. But those things would have most likely thrown off the perfect balance of action, humor and character interaction that made this movie so enjoyable.
Glory Road
Book
Written in Lauren Denton’s signature Southern style, Glory Road tells the story of three...
Fiction Romance Women's Fiction
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)