Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Adjustment Bureau (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story David Norris (Matt Damon) is running for congress when a story gets released cause his ratings to slide. It is now upon Harry (Anthony Mackie) to fix this to make sure David wins and follows his destine path. David goes on to win and thanks to a chance meeting with Elise (Emily Blunt) gives one of the best speeches people have heard boosting his chances of running for senate.
The next morning Harry misses the chance he has to stop David getting on a bus to work, on this bus he meet Elise again cause his destiny to be changed. After getting her phone number he arrives at work only to discover that Charlie (Michael Kelly) his campaign manager and his office had been frozen by Richardson (John Slattery) and his team for adjustments. After seeing behind the curtain Richardson burns the number putting David back on his path, warning David not to find Elise and not tell anyone about the people making peoples lives happen.
David is left trying to keep his destine line while always trying to find Elise can he beat the adjustment team watch and you will see.
Verdict The headline review was ‘Bourne meets Inception’ and in a way it is having a way of controlling someones life by make chances things happen. the action chases are well constructed without even having to use guns. David love for Elise is strong with all the obstacles and sacrifices he makes for the idea of a better futures. This is a strong action thriller that everyone should enjoy but you would have to watch from start to finish and will struggle if picked up half way through.
Best quote Elise ‘ I’m not some hopeless romantic, I would never allow myself to be that way, but once I’ve fell, even for a moment, what I felt with you’
Favourite character Harry David personal watcher who explains the rules and breaks some too
Stand out performance Matt Damon he gives his normal strong performance as an important figure who takes risks
Best moment The door chase
Worst Moment Maybe being picky but maybe more explanation of the year gaps
https://moviesreview101.com/2011/07/09/the-adjustment-bureau-2011/
The next morning Harry misses the chance he has to stop David getting on a bus to work, on this bus he meet Elise again cause his destiny to be changed. After getting her phone number he arrives at work only to discover that Charlie (Michael Kelly) his campaign manager and his office had been frozen by Richardson (John Slattery) and his team for adjustments. After seeing behind the curtain Richardson burns the number putting David back on his path, warning David not to find Elise and not tell anyone about the people making peoples lives happen.
David is left trying to keep his destine line while always trying to find Elise can he beat the adjustment team watch and you will see.
Verdict The headline review was ‘Bourne meets Inception’ and in a way it is having a way of controlling someones life by make chances things happen. the action chases are well constructed without even having to use guns. David love for Elise is strong with all the obstacles and sacrifices he makes for the idea of a better futures. This is a strong action thriller that everyone should enjoy but you would have to watch from start to finish and will struggle if picked up half way through.
Best quote Elise ‘ I’m not some hopeless romantic, I would never allow myself to be that way, but once I’ve fell, even for a moment, what I felt with you’
Favourite character Harry David personal watcher who explains the rules and breaks some too
Stand out performance Matt Damon he gives his normal strong performance as an important figure who takes risks
Best moment The door chase
Worst Moment Maybe being picky but maybe more explanation of the year gaps
https://moviesreview101.com/2011/07/09/the-adjustment-bureau-2011/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Adjustment Bureau (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Adjustment Bureau is based on (or it may be more accurate to say, inspired by) the Philip K. Dick short story “Adjustment Team”, and stars Matt Damon as David Norris, a New York politician running for the U.S. Senate and Emily Blunt as Elise Sellas, a professional ballerina.
When David and Elise first meet in the men’s restroom and he doesn’t question her gender I knew this wasn’t going to be the typical boy meets girl story. Just to clarify, I’m not saying she turns out to be a he, I’m just saying it’s good to check out the engine under the hood. But what should have been a once in a restroom… er, lifetime encounter, becomes a second, then a third and… you get the point. Shortly after their second encounter where David finally gets Elise’s name and number written on a business card he walks in on a strange group of well dressed individuals who were what can only be described as “probing” his friends in a conference room. So David does what any sane person would do after witnessing a group probing, he runs (like you wouldn’t? ). After running down a few hallways, he’s captured. Let’s be honest, running down hallways isn’t Oscar material, so I was glad it was short-lived. David learns that these well-dressed individuals work for The Adjustment Bureau.
This secret organization works behind the scenes to ensure the course of destiny, as written by “The Chairman”, goes as planned and they tell him that men’s room ballerinas are not part of the plan for him. At this point I wanted to yell “Screw them, go for the ballerina! They’re bendy!” but before I could, Agent Richardson (played by John Slattery) informs David that if he doesn’t follow the plan they have for him then they will… well, let’s just say they will probe him like nobody’s business. Then before they leave they take the business card with Elise’s name and number on it and before you can say “rooster-block” they throw him to the floor like Chevy Chase impersonating President Ford and disappear.
In time David and Elise are reunited by chance and with some information given to him by his disgruntled Adjustment Bureau ex-caseworker Agent Harry (played by Anthony Mackie), David works hard to overcome the obstacles placed before them by the Adjustment Bureau. But when Agent Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) joins the fray, he tells David what will happen to Elise if he doesn’t leave her.
Does love win in the end, does fate win or are they eaten by the alligators in the New York City sewers? I will tell you, that once again, the alligators did not win. The film does an excellent job of balancing its romance and thriller aspects with just enough humor to compliment the first two aspects, making it a very enjoyable movie for an individual, a couple or a group of friends to see. On a side note, when the film was over I left the movie wanting to buy a suit and I really dislike wearing suits.
When David and Elise first meet in the men’s restroom and he doesn’t question her gender I knew this wasn’t going to be the typical boy meets girl story. Just to clarify, I’m not saying she turns out to be a he, I’m just saying it’s good to check out the engine under the hood. But what should have been a once in a restroom… er, lifetime encounter, becomes a second, then a third and… you get the point. Shortly after their second encounter where David finally gets Elise’s name and number written on a business card he walks in on a strange group of well dressed individuals who were what can only be described as “probing” his friends in a conference room. So David does what any sane person would do after witnessing a group probing, he runs (like you wouldn’t? ). After running down a few hallways, he’s captured. Let’s be honest, running down hallways isn’t Oscar material, so I was glad it was short-lived. David learns that these well-dressed individuals work for The Adjustment Bureau.
This secret organization works behind the scenes to ensure the course of destiny, as written by “The Chairman”, goes as planned and they tell him that men’s room ballerinas are not part of the plan for him. At this point I wanted to yell “Screw them, go for the ballerina! They’re bendy!” but before I could, Agent Richardson (played by John Slattery) informs David that if he doesn’t follow the plan they have for him then they will… well, let’s just say they will probe him like nobody’s business. Then before they leave they take the business card with Elise’s name and number on it and before you can say “rooster-block” they throw him to the floor like Chevy Chase impersonating President Ford and disappear.
In time David and Elise are reunited by chance and with some information given to him by his disgruntled Adjustment Bureau ex-caseworker Agent Harry (played by Anthony Mackie), David works hard to overcome the obstacles placed before them by the Adjustment Bureau. But when Agent Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) joins the fray, he tells David what will happen to Elise if he doesn’t leave her.
Does love win in the end, does fate win or are they eaten by the alligators in the New York City sewers? I will tell you, that once again, the alligators did not win. The film does an excellent job of balancing its romance and thriller aspects with just enough humor to compliment the first two aspects, making it a very enjoyable movie for an individual, a couple or a group of friends to see. On a side note, when the film was over I left the movie wanting to buy a suit and I really dislike wearing suits.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Good Lord! How much sex and violence is acceptable for a UK-15 film?
I recognise that it’s a “thing” that I get into periodic ‘ruts’ of ranting about particular aspects of cinema. But it’s not spoilers in trailers this time! No, the most recent rut I’ve been in is concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the BBFC’s rating of UK 15-certificate films, which seems to have been the rating of every cinema film I’ve seen recently! In my view both “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” should both have firmly been 12A’s to attract a broader teenage audience. But here’s a case on the other side of the balance.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.