Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Guy Richie back to doing what he does best (1 more)
Excellent cast
Twists, turns and carnage
Since Snatch Guy Richie hasn’t covered himself in glory with some of his recent films. The likes of Swept Away, Revolver and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword did little to enhance his street cred.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
This isn’t the first time I’ve read this book, and it probably won’t be the last, either. I’m reading the first two books in preparation for reading the final book. Wolf Hall is as good as it was the first time round, and I think it’s a book that bears reading more than once - I’ve picked up things this time that I didn’t see the first read through. I have a sneaking suspicion that you could find something new, no matter how many times you read it.
It can be a little confusing at first, when Cromwell is referred to as ‘he’ throughout, but I slipped into the habit after a while. When learning about the Tudors at school, Cromwell is very much skimmed over. We learn that he had his moment of favour and then had his head chopped off 🤷🏼♀️. It seemed to be a bit of a professional hazard if you worked with royalty in those days.
This book gives Thomas Cromwell personality, feelings and you get to see his hopes and aspirations. He is portrayed as a thoroughly nice person, a good, caring father and employer. Someone who fought his way out of poverty, and tried to bring others out of that same situation. But he’s also shown to be calculating, cunning, a man that is no fool. There would have to be an element of the cut-throat about a man who wanted to work with Henry VIII; a king who was unpredictable, to say the least, and easily influenced by those around him.
I adore this period in history. Nothing is as shocking as real life, and I cannot for the life of me get over how cheap life was in a time where it should have been worth more (with no antibiotics, high infant and maternal mortality, death around the corner from simple illnesses). I’m really looking forward to rereading the second book in this trilogy now.
It can be a little confusing at first, when Cromwell is referred to as ‘he’ throughout, but I slipped into the habit after a while. When learning about the Tudors at school, Cromwell is very much skimmed over. We learn that he had his moment of favour and then had his head chopped off 🤷🏼♀️. It seemed to be a bit of a professional hazard if you worked with royalty in those days.
This book gives Thomas Cromwell personality, feelings and you get to see his hopes and aspirations. He is portrayed as a thoroughly nice person, a good, caring father and employer. Someone who fought his way out of poverty, and tried to bring others out of that same situation. But he’s also shown to be calculating, cunning, a man that is no fool. There would have to be an element of the cut-throat about a man who wanted to work with Henry VIII; a king who was unpredictable, to say the least, and easily influenced by those around him.
I adore this period in history. Nothing is as shocking as real life, and I cannot for the life of me get over how cheap life was in a time where it should have been worth more (with no antibiotics, high infant and maternal mortality, death around the corner from simple illnesses). I’m really looking forward to rereading the second book in this trilogy now.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
1972: Billie Jean King (played brilliantly by Emma Stone) just became the Grand Slam Champion of the Women’s Tennis Association. She had challenged the inequity of pay between the Men’s and Women’s Tennis Tour. Once she learns that the tournament for the Lawn Tennis Association is paying Women one eighth of the Men’s purse. She goes up against Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman at his misogynistic best). Billie, with her Manager, Gladys Heldman (Sarah Silverman in spectacular form echoing a more subdued version of Bobbie Fleckman) leave the LTA and start their own Women’s Tour. Which became the Virginia Slims tournament.
Around the same time, Bobby (Steve Carell, playing Riggs like a manic Pagliacci) the once Pro Slam Champion who now works in a nondescript office at his father-in-law’s business. Bobby, the dreamer, is a gambler figuratively and literally. The man who’s inner child has taken the reins on the run. He is the clown who needs constant attention, and the showman who could sell the Golden Gate. Carell, gives an exceptional performance, riling us up with cringe-worthy moments and showing us the man that is so certain of his abilities that he forgets the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
We are brought into relationships that these two athletes have with their families and loved ones. Of what they went through before the epic, world famous Battle of the Sexes in the Houston Astrodome. The film serves us a picture of the time where women had recently began the feminine movement and Women’s Liberation. The entire feel of the movie is set solidly in the seventies, the sexism rampant and accepted as the status quo. Misogyny is socially acceptable and Riggs and friends epitomize the attitude.
There is also the story of Billie Jean, realizing an attraction to a woman she meets before the starting her tour. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough was magnetic), the hairdresser that was instantly drawn to Billie. We also get the treat of seeing the magnificent Alan Cumming as Ted, the charming designer of the women’s fantastic tennis outfits. Wallace Langham as Henry, the tailor.
The story is built up to the historic Battle of the Sexes at the Astrodome. We see the work that Billie does in preparation. Daily drills and practice games. Bobby’s confidence in his ability to deliver a win that mirrored the decimation of Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) who at the time was the top female tennis player in the world.
The directing duo of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) delivers us a well balanced, heartfelt film with a stellar cast. The soundtrack brings us into the early seventies and the costuming is quantum leap back to the time where polyester leisure suits and colorful shirts were the height of fashion. This is a love story of Billie Jean King and Tennis
Around the same time, Bobby (Steve Carell, playing Riggs like a manic Pagliacci) the once Pro Slam Champion who now works in a nondescript office at his father-in-law’s business. Bobby, the dreamer, is a gambler figuratively and literally. The man who’s inner child has taken the reins on the run. He is the clown who needs constant attention, and the showman who could sell the Golden Gate. Carell, gives an exceptional performance, riling us up with cringe-worthy moments and showing us the man that is so certain of his abilities that he forgets the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
We are brought into relationships that these two athletes have with their families and loved ones. Of what they went through before the epic, world famous Battle of the Sexes in the Houston Astrodome. The film serves us a picture of the time where women had recently began the feminine movement and Women’s Liberation. The entire feel of the movie is set solidly in the seventies, the sexism rampant and accepted as the status quo. Misogyny is socially acceptable and Riggs and friends epitomize the attitude.
There is also the story of Billie Jean, realizing an attraction to a woman she meets before the starting her tour. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough was magnetic), the hairdresser that was instantly drawn to Billie. We also get the treat of seeing the magnificent Alan Cumming as Ted, the charming designer of the women’s fantastic tennis outfits. Wallace Langham as Henry, the tailor.
The story is built up to the historic Battle of the Sexes at the Astrodome. We see the work that Billie does in preparation. Daily drills and practice games. Bobby’s confidence in his ability to deliver a win that mirrored the decimation of Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) who at the time was the top female tennis player in the world.
The directing duo of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) delivers us a well balanced, heartfelt film with a stellar cast. The soundtrack brings us into the early seventies and the costuming is quantum leap back to the time where polyester leisure suits and colorful shirts were the height of fashion. This is a love story of Billie Jean King and Tennis
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Papillon (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Henry “Papillon” Charriere (Charlie Hunnam) is a safecracker making his name in the Parisian underworld. But when he decides to keep some diamonds from a big score to himself his luck changes. He is framed for a murder and given a life sentence. Even worse for Papillon is that he is being shipped to the Devil’s Island penal colony in French Giana. With no chance at an appeal his only chance at freedom is to escape. On the long boat ride from France to South America he finds an unlikely ally in the form of the forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek). The slight and awkward Dega does not want to escape but rather just survive long enough to have his appeal heard. Papillon agrees to protect Dega in exchange for financing any escape plan Papillon can devise. With Dega’s financial backing Papillon now only has to figure out how to escape from prison no one has been known to escape from on an island surrounded by rivers and ocean, unforgiving jungle and guards who shoot to kill.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
Papillon is based on a true story and adapted from the novels “Papillon” and “Banco” written by Charriere himself. This is the second film adaptation of these novels. The other film, also Papillon, is from 1973 stared Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. I have not seen the 1973 version but I did enjoy the story and could be worth viewing to get another directors vision.
The 2018 version is powered but a captivating story of survival and the unlikely friendship of two men thrust together in a harsh environment. Both Hunnam (King Arthur, Pacific Rim) and Malek (Mr. Robot – TV Series, Night at the Museum) give excellent performances. The rest of the cast is okay but these two stars give great performances. Danish director Michael Noer (R, Northwest) does a decent job in the telling of the story visually. There was blood in one scene that was a pink colored and did not look anything like blood and that was a little distracting. The prison seemed realistic and grimy, but also weirdly bright.
Overall I enjoyed this film. I didn’t have any expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised but interesting story. At 2 hours and 13 minutes it does seem a bit too long. This would be a film I would enjoy watching at home and not necessarily something I would spend theater money on.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
I first got an extended look at “Bullet Train” during Cinemacon when a reel of the film was shown during the Sony showcase to an enthusiastic crowd. The footage mixed action and humor with quirky and dysfunctional characters and became a must-see film for me based on the teased footage.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.
The film is based on a book by Kotaro Isaka and stars Brad Pitt as an operative named Ladybug. He is called at the last minute as a replacement and given instructions to board a Bullet Train and snatch a case in one of the passenger areas before exiting at the next station.
Having gone through a recent crisis, Ladybug is awash in various philosophical and new age ideas as he attempts to find his inner peace and a new path in life, as such he does not take a gun with him when he boards despite being instructed to do so by his handler.
The train is filled with various killers and dangerous people who are there to accomplish various goals and most of whom fail frequently in violent and hysterical manners which further complicate their agendas as well as that of the others and often puts them into conflict with one another as the story unfolds.
It would be difficult to go into further detail on the various characters without spoiling some of the reveals and twists along the way but suffice it to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry as Tangerine and Lemon are great and their banter, as well as capers, is a frequent highlight.
There are some surprise cameos in the film which add to the fun and Joey King is as great as perhaps one of the more complicated characters in the film. Pitt is clearly the star but the film allows him as well as his supporting cast plenty of moments to shine and the humor flies fast and frequent as does the action which creates a very engaging and stylistic hybrid of western and Asian cinema.
The film does drag slightly late before leading to the finale but thanks to the great cast and action it comes through in the end.
Director David Leitch has worked on films such as “Deadpool 2”, “Atomic Blonde”, and “John Wick: and you can see that he has a knack for directing action and comedy as this is a very fun and engaging film that has some great action and humor and one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5.