Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2091 KP) rated The Heist (Fox and O'Hare, #1) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
FBI Kate O'Hare has been chasing conman Nick Fox for years. But when she finally catches him, her life is turned upside down. Now she finds herself teamed up with him to try to catch another criminal.
To me, this book felt like a melding of the TV shows White Collar and Castle, both of which I love. It was funny and a wild ride. The pace was just a little off at times, but for the most part I enjoyed this romp.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/07/book-review-heist-by-janet-evanovich.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
To me, this book felt like a melding of the TV shows White Collar and Castle, both of which I love. It was funny and a wild ride. The pace was just a little off at times, but for the most part I enjoyed this romp.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/07/book-review-heist-by-janet-evanovich.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Dork_knight74 (881 KP) rated The Last Heist (2016) in Movies
Nov 22, 2018
Meh
Found this one on Netflix. It's very mediocre. The acting was weak and the effects were too. The story wasn't a bad premise but it was told poorly. The action sequences were not very good or realistic. I found myself saying many times over "yeah, right" and I'm not usually one that expects realism from movies. Problem is, if you're trying to make it realistic, then you have to stick to it throughout. It was basically a "bank heist good really bad" movie, not some fantasy style story. I would say that overall this one is NOT worth a watch.
JT (287 KP) rated Triple Frontier (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Triple Frontier is the latest straight-to-Netflix blockbuster that manages to hit the right notes at the right times. More often than not Netflix originals aren’t anything to get excited about, although occasionally there is a diamond in the rough.
Triple Frontier turns from taught heist thriller to survivalistic drama all in the space of a few acts, and if you stick with it then you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Tracking down South American drug lord Gabriel Martin Lorea (Reynaldo Gallegos) has been an obsession for Santiago “Pope” Garcia (Oscar Isaac), but at last the intel has paid off.
Garcia has not only discovered where Lorea is located but where he is hiding his huge fortune. Rather than turn the intel over to the authorities he keeps the information for himself, sharing it with a group of ex-Special Forces buddies. The plan is simple, undergo surveillance of the compound and then pull off a daring heist where they will all walk away with a life changing amount of cash.
There is a lot of unrest initially, as all come to understand the complications as well as severity of what could happen if it all goes tits up, which of course, there is every chance it will do.
Garcia is joined by Tom “Redfly” Davis (Ben Affleck), brothers William “Ironhead” Miller (Charlie Hunnam) and Ben Miller (Garrett Hedlund), and Francisco “Catfish” Morales (Pedro Pascal).
The is a solid amount of brotherly love as well as chemistry which works incredibly well on screen. Back stories are to be believed and there is an air of intensity that hangs over the group, never quite knowing which way it is all going to go. The action is tight and well executed and the suspense is pretty much kept up all the way through the run time. If you’re a fan of the heist genre which avoids the slick, humorous elements of an Ocean’s Eleven, then this one is for you.
Triple Frontier turns from taught heist thriller to survivalistic drama all in the space of a few acts, and if you stick with it then you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Tracking down South American drug lord Gabriel Martin Lorea (Reynaldo Gallegos) has been an obsession for Santiago “Pope” Garcia (Oscar Isaac), but at last the intel has paid off.
Garcia has not only discovered where Lorea is located but where he is hiding his huge fortune. Rather than turn the intel over to the authorities he keeps the information for himself, sharing it with a group of ex-Special Forces buddies. The plan is simple, undergo surveillance of the compound and then pull off a daring heist where they will all walk away with a life changing amount of cash.
There is a lot of unrest initially, as all come to understand the complications as well as severity of what could happen if it all goes tits up, which of course, there is every chance it will do.
Garcia is joined by Tom “Redfly” Davis (Ben Affleck), brothers William “Ironhead” Miller (Charlie Hunnam) and Ben Miller (Garrett Hedlund), and Francisco “Catfish” Morales (Pedro Pascal).
The is a solid amount of brotherly love as well as chemistry which works incredibly well on screen. Back stories are to be believed and there is an air of intensity that hangs over the group, never quite knowing which way it is all going to go. The action is tight and well executed and the suspense is pretty much kept up all the way through the run time. If you’re a fan of the heist genre which avoids the slick, humorous elements of an Ocean’s Eleven, then this one is for you.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Surprisingly Disappointing Heist Film
Upon seeing King of Thieves listed as a Limitless preview screening, I immediately snapped up the opportunity to see it because I had been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw. With a well-known cast, an iconic real life heist story, and a classic ‘British crime’ aura, I was anticipating something great. I really can’t understand how they managed to mess that combo up, but here we are. Out of all the reviews I’ve ever written, this one is probably the hardest because of how disappointed I feel. As a film fan it’s difficult when you get yourself hyped up, only to be let down by the finished result.
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jul 17, 2018
Sandra Bullock stars as Debbie Ocean, sister of Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the previous Oceans movies. She begins the movie in jail, being released on parole and promising to go straight. She has 45 dollars in her pocket and manages to get to New York, scam herself some free makeup and a hotel room, and pretty much everything else she needs. She's clearly just like her brother, able to con her way to getting whatever she wants.
After that it's all a bit of an incoherent blur for a while. She's got a plan, she knows people who can help, they know people that can help, so they all start joining forces and forming some kind of plan, starting with an old accomplice, Lou (Cate Blanchett). The sloppy plot building is papered over with cool music, witty dialogue and snappy editing techniques similar to those in the far superior Ocean's 11. It's a frustrating and dull start to the movie.
Once the team of girls are all together though and they begin working through their plan, things loosen up a bit and are a bit more enjoyable. The heist they're planning is to steal a very expensive Cartier necklace from the neck of movie star Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway) while she attends New York's Met Gala, and under the watchful gaze of a team of security guys. With the help of a hacker (Rihanna), a fashion designer (Helena Bonham Carter), a pickpocket (Awkwafina), a jeweller (Mindy Kaling) and another old con partner (Sarah Paulson), the details of the heist are slowly refined - security cameras hacked, the necklace analysed and recreated via 3D printing. When it comes to the heist itself, it all plays enjoyably enough, but everything goes far too smoothly, with no real tension or suspense or any suggestion that they might not pull it off. Once again, it just feels inferior compared to Ocean's 11.
Sandra Bullock is the only one here displaying real screen presence, which is a real shame when you consider the talent involved. Cate Blanchett feels underused and Anne Hathaway is the only other actress making any real impact. Everyone else just feels wasted, too restricted to the roles they need to carry out in order to get the job done, with not much else going on.
We didn't really need another Ocean's movie. The quality of the previous series diminished with each one anyway and although I'm all up for the refreshing change of an all female heist movie, I felt this would have been much better overall without the whole 'Ocean' connection and the need to live up to the previous movies.
After that it's all a bit of an incoherent blur for a while. She's got a plan, she knows people who can help, they know people that can help, so they all start joining forces and forming some kind of plan, starting with an old accomplice, Lou (Cate Blanchett). The sloppy plot building is papered over with cool music, witty dialogue and snappy editing techniques similar to those in the far superior Ocean's 11. It's a frustrating and dull start to the movie.
Once the team of girls are all together though and they begin working through their plan, things loosen up a bit and are a bit more enjoyable. The heist they're planning is to steal a very expensive Cartier necklace from the neck of movie star Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway) while she attends New York's Met Gala, and under the watchful gaze of a team of security guys. With the help of a hacker (Rihanna), a fashion designer (Helena Bonham Carter), a pickpocket (Awkwafina), a jeweller (Mindy Kaling) and another old con partner (Sarah Paulson), the details of the heist are slowly refined - security cameras hacked, the necklace analysed and recreated via 3D printing. When it comes to the heist itself, it all plays enjoyably enough, but everything goes far too smoothly, with no real tension or suspense or any suggestion that they might not pull it off. Once again, it just feels inferior compared to Ocean's 11.
Sandra Bullock is the only one here displaying real screen presence, which is a real shame when you consider the talent involved. Cate Blanchett feels underused and Anne Hathaway is the only other actress making any real impact. Everyone else just feels wasted, too restricted to the roles they need to carry out in order to get the job done, with not much else going on.
We didn't really need another Ocean's movie. The quality of the previous series diminished with each one anyway and although I'm all up for the refreshing change of an all female heist movie, I felt this would have been much better overall without the whole 'Ocean' connection and the need to live up to the previous movies.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Kidnapping Mr. Heineken (2015) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Kidnapping Freddy Heineken starts as we follow our five criminals Cor Van Hout (Sturgess), Willem (Worthington), Cat (Kwanten), Spikes (Eeuwen) and Brakes (Cocquerel) who have always been looking for a way to make money quickly instead of getting real jobs in Holland. Their latest plan is to kidnap beer tycoon Freddy Heineken (Hopkins) and collecting the ransom.
With the plan in place the kidnapping goes well the wait for the ransom is what takes the time and tests the strength of the kidnappers over the victims as we follow what could be the undoing of the men.
Thoughts on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken
Characters – Cor Van Hout is the leader of the gang, he brings his men together to complete the jobs with some failing and others not, he comes up with the latest job while his personal life is about to hit the highs a father could experience. Willem is the hot head of the group who will go past the marks to make the job get done and he could become the biggest problem involved. Freddy Heineken is the beer tycoon that has become the target of this men and he stays extremely calm through his ordeal trying to friend his kidnappers too.
Performance – Jim Sturgess is strong in the leading role of this film throughout feeling like the rest would listen to his every word. Sam Worthington is good in the loose cannon role too. Anthony Hopkins is as always the star of the show here as you want to see all of his scenes.
Story – The story is based on the true story of what happened when a group of criminals kidnap the tycoon and how they were not completely sure things would work and how things could go wrong. This is good because it doesn’t go down a slick as the best heist movies but is also calm enough to feel like it is based on real people human errors through the heist.
Action/Crime – There are a couple of good car chases through the film which do make up the action side of things while the whole story is about the crime being committed.
Settings – The streets involved in Amsterdam show us how tight the car chases can be and escape routes by more than just road, we do feel like this is authentic with how everything unfolds during the crime.
Scene of the Movie – Freddy’s orders.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The clear choice for a problem is having some Dutch cast members but the leads are not.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that didn’t get much talk when it came out but I don’t understand why, it is an enjoyable and one film that is worth watching for all the heist fans out there.
Overall: Good heist film.
With the plan in place the kidnapping goes well the wait for the ransom is what takes the time and tests the strength of the kidnappers over the victims as we follow what could be the undoing of the men.
Thoughts on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken
Characters – Cor Van Hout is the leader of the gang, he brings his men together to complete the jobs with some failing and others not, he comes up with the latest job while his personal life is about to hit the highs a father could experience. Willem is the hot head of the group who will go past the marks to make the job get done and he could become the biggest problem involved. Freddy Heineken is the beer tycoon that has become the target of this men and he stays extremely calm through his ordeal trying to friend his kidnappers too.
Performance – Jim Sturgess is strong in the leading role of this film throughout feeling like the rest would listen to his every word. Sam Worthington is good in the loose cannon role too. Anthony Hopkins is as always the star of the show here as you want to see all of his scenes.
Story – The story is based on the true story of what happened when a group of criminals kidnap the tycoon and how they were not completely sure things would work and how things could go wrong. This is good because it doesn’t go down a slick as the best heist movies but is also calm enough to feel like it is based on real people human errors through the heist.
Action/Crime – There are a couple of good car chases through the film which do make up the action side of things while the whole story is about the crime being committed.
Settings – The streets involved in Amsterdam show us how tight the car chases can be and escape routes by more than just road, we do feel like this is authentic with how everything unfolds during the crime.
Scene of the Movie – Freddy’s orders.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The clear choice for a problem is having some Dutch cast members but the leads are not.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that didn’t get much talk when it came out but I don’t understand why, it is an enjoyable and one film that is worth watching for all the heist fans out there.
Overall: Good heist film.
Charles Burbridge (13 KP) rated The Hurricane Heist (2018) in Movies
Mar 24, 2018
Imagine, if you will, a film released in theaters, with Syfy Channel level special effects, acting, and writing. Imagine, if you will, a hurricane that has skulls not so well hidden in the storm clouds in nearly every shot. Imagine, if you will, the hackneyed plot of people trying to steal old money from the Treasury before it gets shredded. You will have imagined Hurricane Heist.
Now, this film is bad, but it's not garden variety bad. It's bad enough that it wrapped itself all the way back around to entertaining. Hurricane Heist is blatantly dumb yet the actors, as much as they can, play it straight. For an hour and a half, you will ask yourself, "Can this movie get any dumber?" The answer is, "Yes. Yes, it can."
Was I entertained? Greatly. Is there any way that I can recommend spending any money on seeing a movie that has nothing going for it besides your incredulity at the fact that it not only got made, but got a theatrical release? No. But, for dang sure, if it shows up on Netflix or on something that you already pay for, check it out, if only for a few minutes. You won't gain anything from those few minutes, but there's a fairly high chance that you will laugh.
Now, this film is bad, but it's not garden variety bad. It's bad enough that it wrapped itself all the way back around to entertaining. Hurricane Heist is blatantly dumb yet the actors, as much as they can, play it straight. For an hour and a half, you will ask yourself, "Can this movie get any dumber?" The answer is, "Yes. Yes, it can."
Was I entertained? Greatly. Is there any way that I can recommend spending any money on seeing a movie that has nothing going for it besides your incredulity at the fact that it not only got made, but got a theatrical release? No. But, for dang sure, if it shows up on Netflix or on something that you already pay for, check it out, if only for a few minutes. You won't gain anything from those few minutes, but there's a fairly high chance that you will laugh.
Reiko LJ (126 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jul 26, 2018
Superb cast (2 more)
Snappy dialogue and didn't hold your hand
Sharp, clean camera work
It lulled a bit in the middle, needed to keep the pace up (1 more)
James Corden cannot act for toffee. Cast differently, his character might have made more impact
Crime Caper Fun
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I could, I would give it 7.5, my love for the cast meant a bump up rather than down.
The Ocean's films are a solid fixture in the crime caper/heist genre. This genre is never about changing the world or making a big statement. It's here to entertain as people more interesting and skilled than you pull off something amazing. This entry delivers this easily, and with style.
The characters slotted in nicely together and everyone had their part to play with authenticity. Cate Blanchett's 'Lou' had a screen presence dripping with confidence and played off Bullock's 'Debbie' with ease. You don't have to watch the PR tour interviews to know the cast got along well, it shows through the film.
I feel like it lacked a certain something to really make it pop, major conflict perhaps? Even the obvious obstacle with the investigator proved to be little more than a speed bump. Or maybe that's the point? Maybe the whole statement is that a well planned heist with the right people means nothing does go wrong. Think on that.
The Ocean's films are a solid fixture in the crime caper/heist genre. This genre is never about changing the world or making a big statement. It's here to entertain as people more interesting and skilled than you pull off something amazing. This entry delivers this easily, and with style.
The characters slotted in nicely together and everyone had their part to play with authenticity. Cate Blanchett's 'Lou' had a screen presence dripping with confidence and played off Bullock's 'Debbie' with ease. You don't have to watch the PR tour interviews to know the cast got along well, it shows through the film.
I feel like it lacked a certain something to really make it pop, major conflict perhaps? Even the obvious obstacle with the investigator proved to be little more than a speed bump. Or maybe that's the point? Maybe the whole statement is that a well planned heist with the right people means nothing does go wrong. Think on that.
Awix (3310 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
May 14, 2019
Yet another cobblers sequel to the 80s action classic, as Bruce Willis goes to Russia after his grown-up son is thrown in the clink for murdering someone. This turns out to be part of a uproariously stupid plot featuring all the usual goons in ski-masks and some sort of plan to carry out a heist on Chernobyl (mmm, tasteful).
Not just a bad movie, but one which is only barely functional as a narrative - the various cartoony action set-pieces are competently slapped together, but the connective tissue of characterisation, plot exposition, and relationships is just not there. No wit, no subtext, no point.
Not just a bad movie, but one which is only barely functional as a narrative - the various cartoony action set-pieces are competently slapped together, but the connective tissue of characterisation, plot exposition, and relationships is just not there. No wit, no subtext, no point.