Search
Florence Foster Jenkins
Nicholas Martin and Jasper Rees
Book
'People may say that I couldn't sing. But no one can say that I didn't sing.' Despite lacking pitch,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2019
Wonderful, whimsical film for kids and adults alike
As I was perusing various "Top Films of 2018" lists, one surprising film kept showing up on these lists, so I thought I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) in Movies
Dec 29, 2018
Lovable & heartwarming rom-com
Out of all the rom-coms out there, Bridget Jones Diary is one of my favourites. For a start Bridget herself isn’t your usual perfect rom-com lead - she’s not stick thin and drinks and smokes far too much - for me that makes Bridget all the more endearing. I think most women can relate to Bridget in some way. She’s funny, loud mouthed and not very coherent at public speaking, and can’t help but make an idiot out of herself, and this is what makes this film all the more lovable.
It’s a heartwarming story of love, not only for Bridget but for her parents too. And it’s also funny and a little on the adult side with a great soundtrack, and yes the plot is predictable but this is one of those films where it doesn’t matter. Yes we can predict what the ending will be, but it’s the getting there that matters.
It has a great cast. I’ve never been a fan of Renee Zellweger but I couldn’t imagine anyone else playing Bridget. And to have both Colin Firth and Hugh Grant as the male leads was always going to be a winner - the fight the two have us hilarious. It’s an altogether lovely, funny rom-com that despite being 17 years old (which i find so hard to believe) is still so relatable today.
I’ll be honest, I’m virtually the same age as Bridget and I actually feel like so much like Bridget right now it’s scary, some of the scenes in this are exactly how I’ve been behaving these past few months! Albeit sadly without the Mark Darcy, or even a charming, sex-pest boss....
It’s a heartwarming story of love, not only for Bridget but for her parents too. And it’s also funny and a little on the adult side with a great soundtrack, and yes the plot is predictable but this is one of those films where it doesn’t matter. Yes we can predict what the ending will be, but it’s the getting there that matters.
It has a great cast. I’ve never been a fan of Renee Zellweger but I couldn’t imagine anyone else playing Bridget. And to have both Colin Firth and Hugh Grant as the male leads was always going to be a winner - the fight the two have us hilarious. It’s an altogether lovely, funny rom-com that despite being 17 years old (which i find so hard to believe) is still so relatable today.
I’ll be honest, I’m virtually the same age as Bridget and I actually feel like so much like Bridget right now it’s scary, some of the scenes in this are exactly how I’ve been behaving these past few months! Albeit sadly without the Mark Darcy, or even a charming, sex-pest boss....
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Renée is of course perfect, as are Hugh and Colin and all three of their respective characters. In fact this is still just as tight, snappy, and cute as it was back in the day - but per no real fault of its own this (or at least a hefty amount of its elements) became the basis for pretty much *every* chintzy romcom clone that was to come for the foreseeable future to the point where a lot of this just feels rather rote now in light of that *and* today's version of the mainstream romcom. Not that there still isn't revolutionary stuff that stands out, particularly the representation of a demographic that wasn't usually seen as romantic lead status at the time given by this lead. Though while it starts out lovely enough there's a clear dip in quality at a point and it treads water by the end. I find the first half very interesting in that - at the time - it probably played as a very adorable yet scandalous romp but now plays more like a biting, ballsy foray into societal satire in light of the #MeToo movement. Plus that's when the witty dialogue, engrossment, and visual competence is at its best anyway. But those aforementioned cringey and overused romcom clichés (people falling off boats, making a mess while cooking, interrupting some sort of wedding announcement, cheeky but actually annoying best friends who serve no purpose, etc etc) bog it down more and more until it runs on full autopilot mode. The parent subplot is a nonentity too but that's whatever I guess. Though I do stand with the majority in that the Firth x Grant fight scene is - naturally - a masterpiece. Agreeable even though approximately no interesting threads get pulled.
JT (287 KP) rated A Good Year (2006) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This is certainly not your conventional Ridley Scott film, but it’s one that was well shot but not very well written. Investment broker Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) knows only one thing, how to make money. But when he inherits his Uncle’s chateau in Provence where he spent much of his childhood he must decide between the life he has in London or the life in France.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
A funny angle
Gentleman is Guy Richie's attempt to bring the british gangster movies from the past back into the modern time and while it may just be an updated version of Snatch its a bloody enjoyable update. It seems like years ago now since I grew out of the 'British Gangster' film phase of my life and while I actaully find Snatch to be over rated myself instead much preferring Guy Richie's other work I can still understand why it has such a big following. Gentleman follows the same formula either deliberately or coincidentally and while this does feel repetative/outdated I couldnt help but be pulled in and deliciously entertained by it. Playing out a bit like reading a comic book Gentleman is satisfyingly violent, full of cusing/crudness and full of mostly satisfying twists and turns. At first I hated it but after the first 20 minutes I just let go and finally started getting back in to this sort of style. Full to the brim with exposition dialog but its handled in a refreshing new way which made hearing it less eye rolling and instead kept it constantly entertaining. Essentially one big power struggle between an assortment of characters non of which are actually very nice people but the ones Hugh Grant and Charlie hunnam play are extremely likeable. Watching these two interact on screen is the absolute bread and butter and they both play interesting characters both with very unique individual traits and characteristics. Colin Farrell is also superb and memorable too and the film has a wicked sense of humor that kept me laughing the whole way through. If you are easily offended its safe to say this is not the film for you as its not only full of extreame cursing but constant racism and violence too. By no means a perfect film or a gangster masterpiece Gentleman is still and absolute blast to watch and has enough twists/turns, quirky characters, witty dialog, fresh ideas, tension, violence/mucking about to entertain and offend pretty much anyone. Highly enjoyable.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It’s been a while since Guy Ritchie dealt with some proper geezers doing crime and talking bollocks. Maybe there were elements of it in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. but really it’s Rock ‘n Rolla from 2008 we are talking about. Personally I hadn’t missed it. I pretty much think he took it as far as it needed to be taken, and I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes stuff, anyway.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dungeons and Dragons: Honour Among Thieves (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
A Ton of Fun
The BankofMarquis is not into Dungeons & Dragons - the role playing/fantasy game that the film DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is based on, so any Easter Eggs for fans of the game is lost here. What the BankofMarquis is into is a good, fun action/adventure film and DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is all that…and more.
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)