Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
At the end of the 1984 Democratic Primaries a relative unknown Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman), concedes victory to Walter Mondale. But being the runner up to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee catapults Hart to the national stage. Fast forward to 1988 and Hart is the overwhelming front runner to be not only the Democratic nominee but most likely the next President of the United States. He is a progressive and has a knack for explaining politics so that everyone can understand. He’s well spoken, has popular policies, a clear message for the future and is a handsome man to boot. It seems like nothing can stand in his way. That is until three weeks into the primary elections reporters from the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis) and Pete Murphy (Bill Burr), get wind of a story of Hart and a young woman from Miami spending time together at yacht party. Since Hart is very much married to his wife, Lee Hart (Vera Farmiga), they decide to investigate. They find out that the two may be meeting in Washington D.C. at Hart’s townhouse. They follow the young woman, Donna Rice (Sara Paxton), from Miami to D.C. There they take photos of the two together and print a story. The media blitz is on and the story explodes. Hart now faces one of the first personal political scandals. He must try and navigate a new media age to not see his political career slip away.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 21, 2017
Old Man Logan (2 more)
Amazing R rated comic book movie
Amazing story
One of the best Marvel movies
Contains spoilers, click to show
Oh my god, this was fantastic. I knew this was going to be a amazing movie going in but it just blew my mind. I never thought we were going to get an Old Man Logan. But Hugh Jackman played the role in away I didn't see coming. From the opening scene inside the limo was the best. Logan was so angry but he really didn't want to bust out the claws. But when you are push to the brink anger just pops out. It was the first time I think I have ever seen blood in an X-men movie. It just got so much better after that.
The addition of Professor X was kind of crazy. I didn't know how it would play out but him being bat shit crazy was a totally different side of him that worked. He really helped show the human side of being a mutant and show Logan there can be peaceful side of life. Them helping the farmer was one of the best scenes in the movie because it helped Logan bring out the human in him and not just his animal instincts.
The little girl that played X-23 was great. I did not know a girl could play anger so well. And that her parents would let her decapitate someone. I really hope they do a full X-23 movie with her grown up, I think it will help keep the series alive.
The death of Logan and Charles hit me so hard. I grew up watching these characters grow and get old and it was very sad to see it end. Logan's burial was done so fast but the kids had to escape, I do wish there was a little more to it and more of a score. But overall fantastic ending to a great Wolverine.
If you didn't see this movie in the theater that's to bad. If you haven't seen at all go see this movie now.
The addition of Professor X was kind of crazy. I didn't know how it would play out but him being bat shit crazy was a totally different side of him that worked. He really helped show the human side of being a mutant and show Logan there can be peaceful side of life. Them helping the farmer was one of the best scenes in the movie because it helped Logan bring out the human in him and not just his animal instincts.
The little girl that played X-23 was great. I did not know a girl could play anger so well. And that her parents would let her decapitate someone. I really hope they do a full X-23 movie with her grown up, I think it will help keep the series alive.
The death of Logan and Charles hit me so hard. I grew up watching these characters grow and get old and it was very sad to see it end. Logan's burial was done so fast but the kids had to escape, I do wish there was a little more to it and more of a score. But overall fantastic ending to a great Wolverine.
If you didn't see this movie in the theater that's to bad. If you haven't seen at all go see this movie now.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Feb 10, 2018 (Updated Feb 10, 2018)
Cover Granny's eyes and ears
The question we must ask ourselves here is: does adding graphic gory violence and F-bombs by the cartload really transform a reasonably formulaic X-men franchise movie into something qualitatively different? Because it seems to me that if you were to make a PG-rated edit of Logan it would not feel that much different from many of the other films in the series. Well, perhaps I exaggerate just a bit, because the film does have a downbeat mood quite unusual for this genre, and the focus on the fragility of its characters does give the actors a lot to work with (though Hugh Jackman is, quite predictably, acted off the screen by Patrick Stewart).
Plot as follows: the year is 2030, or thereabouts, and all is not well for mutantkind, inasmuch as they seem to have died out. A knocking-on-a-bit Wolverine is working as a limo driver and trying to keep a low profile while caring for a frail Charles Xavier, but the appearance of a young mutant girl forces the duo to reassess their priorities.
Maybe the problem is that the first trailer for this film - the one with the Johnny Cash soundtrack - promised something genuinely powerful and melancholic. The song isn't in the movie and neither, really, is the power and melancholy. The movie seems to be trying to tell the story of a conflicted man steeped in violence who tries to find redemption at the end of his life, but Jackman's Wolverine has always been so much of a teddy bear - his 'darkness' and 'edginess' have always felt like corporate branding - that this doesn't really work.
Still, the film is well-assembled and its vision of a dystopian near-future America is both engaging and consisting. The film's willingness to simply not worry about franchise continuity is also kind of refreshing. With the future of the X-franchise apparently somewhat up in the air, this is at the very least a superior entry to mark the departure of at least one of its mainstays.
Plot as follows: the year is 2030, or thereabouts, and all is not well for mutantkind, inasmuch as they seem to have died out. A knocking-on-a-bit Wolverine is working as a limo driver and trying to keep a low profile while caring for a frail Charles Xavier, but the appearance of a young mutant girl forces the duo to reassess their priorities.
Maybe the problem is that the first trailer for this film - the one with the Johnny Cash soundtrack - promised something genuinely powerful and melancholic. The song isn't in the movie and neither, really, is the power and melancholy. The movie seems to be trying to tell the story of a conflicted man steeped in violence who tries to find redemption at the end of his life, but Jackman's Wolverine has always been so much of a teddy bear - his 'darkness' and 'edginess' have always felt like corporate branding - that this doesn't really work.
Still, the film is well-assembled and its vision of a dystopian near-future America is both engaging and consisting. The film's willingness to simply not worry about franchise continuity is also kind of refreshing. With the future of the X-franchise apparently somewhat up in the air, this is at the very least a superior entry to mark the departure of at least one of its mainstays.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Rise of the Guardians (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remember what it was like when you were in elementary school and it snowed? Remember that feeling of anticipation waiting for your mom to say, “No school today kids”, and once she did you just knew you were going to have a blast? If not, you will when you see “Rise of the Guardians”, The newest animated movie from Dreamworks casts Jack Frost (Chris Pine), the Sand Man, Santa Claus (Alec Baldwin), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), and the Boogie Man (Jude Law). The later four, except the Boogie Man, all fulfill their individual roles and come together as a group to protect children as the Guardians.
Cast out centuries ago; Pitch (Law) concocts a plan to bring fear back into children’s hearts by turning their dreams into nightmares. This fear will make him more powerful and, as the Guardian’s lose children’s belief, they become less powerful and are not as able to fight him off. Around the same time that Pitch was cast out, the Man in the Moon picks Jack to be the newest Guardian. Jack is literally left out in the cold for the next 300 years which he spends having fun, creating mischief, and causing snow days. However, he is also on a search for what he is meant to do in life, and why he is here. Something that people of all ages can understand. Through helping the Guardians he finds his purpose.
You know you are at a good show when you sit in an audience consisting mostly of children and hear nothing but the movie. This was a great movie for kids of all ages; I laughed through the whole thing! I loved Santa Claus and his Yetis. They added comic relief that any adult will enjoy. The voice casting was spot on, and each character is relatable in some way. The story of finding one’s self will capture children’s attention and remind adults that they are always on that journey, but it is supposed to be fun. Both children and adults alike will be captivated by the dreams, wonder, memories, hope, and fun this movie provides.
Cast out centuries ago; Pitch (Law) concocts a plan to bring fear back into children’s hearts by turning their dreams into nightmares. This fear will make him more powerful and, as the Guardian’s lose children’s belief, they become less powerful and are not as able to fight him off. Around the same time that Pitch was cast out, the Man in the Moon picks Jack to be the newest Guardian. Jack is literally left out in the cold for the next 300 years which he spends having fun, creating mischief, and causing snow days. However, he is also on a search for what he is meant to do in life, and why he is here. Something that people of all ages can understand. Through helping the Guardians he finds his purpose.
You know you are at a good show when you sit in an audience consisting mostly of children and hear nothing but the movie. This was a great movie for kids of all ages; I laughed through the whole thing! I loved Santa Claus and his Yetis. They added comic relief that any adult will enjoy. The voice casting was spot on, and each character is relatable in some way. The story of finding one’s self will capture children’s attention and remind adults that they are always on that journey, but it is supposed to be fun. Both children and adults alike will be captivated by the dreams, wonder, memories, hope, and fun this movie provides.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Wolverine (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 2009, we were treated to the origin story for one of Marvel’s most beloved characters: The Wolverine. Enthusiasm for the story turned to discord and malcontent for most, but if you had the ability to look past the inadequacies found in most Marvel silver-screen adaptations (as I did), then at least you would have enjoyed seeing the comic come to life.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“When the man comes around”
At last – a superhero movie with real heart… (and not just the chunks over the knuckle blades!). Logan is a bit of a revelation. I was reluctant to go and see it, since a) I’m a lukewarm X-Men fan at best and b) I hadn’t seen either of the previous two Wolverine spin-off films. (Seeing the other Wolverine films, by the way, is not a pre-requisite for enjoying this one). After a long day at work, my choice was “Logan” or “Kong: Skull Island”. I voted for this one, and I’m so glad I did.
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hues and Cues in Tabletop Games
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Jul 7, 2020)
When chatting with the team at Purple Phoenix Games about Hues and Cues, what ended up happening was listing our favorite Hughs in order (obviously Hugh Jackman being the best Hugh). However, Hues and Cues has nothing to do with any of those Hughs, but rather color hues, or shades. Did this one make us blue like Eeyore? Are the other PPG team members green with envy that I possess this game now? Or has this one sparked a joyous shout to the orange-colored sky?
Hues and Cues is a party game of describing colors using one- and two-word cues (a la the hit game show Password from back in the day). As each player is attempting to guess the correct color, and populate the areas immediately adjacent to it, chances for big-time points are plentiful, but I’ll tell you what – coming up with cues proves to be a bit more challenging than one might assume.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a retail copy of this game for the purposes of this review. Though I know the designer personally, I will be reviewing this game as an impartial judge. -T
To setup a game of Hues and Cues, shuffle the large deck of cue cards to be drawn from, lay out the giant board, set aside the scoring frame for now, and give each player the three cones of their selected color. Place one of these cones on the board to be used as a scoring token, and the game is ready to be played!
A game of Hues and Cues will be played over several rounds where each player will act as the cue giver for at least one round, depending on number of players (unless you play with my wife, in which case games can last many many more rounds than suggested). The cue giver will draw a card from the deck, choose a color hue from it, and think of a one-word cue to offer the group. Once the cue is given, in clockwise fashion, each other player will place one of their cones on a color box on the main board. Once complete, the cue giver will then offer a two-word cue to the group, if they so choose… Again the players will place their other cone in a box (either near their original choice or somewhere completely different). When all players have placed their second cone, the cue giver will place upon the board the scoring frame with the chosen hue’s coordinates directly in the center of the frame.
If a player has placed a cone directly on the correct coordinate box, they score 3 points. If a cone resides within the scoring frame (the other 8 boxes surrounding the correct box), they receive 2 points. For every cone just outside the scoring frame surrounding it, the player will receive 1 point. For each cone within the scoring frame the cue giver will score 1 point.
The game ends after each player has had one or two turns to be cue giver, depending on player count and house rules for game end rounds. The player with the most points will be deemed the winner and will have quality bragging rights for the night.
Components. Guys and gals, these components are great. The board is HUGE, but also necessary because there are tons of color hues printed on it. The cards are nice, and the game comes with a giant stack of them. The cones are colored cones. There’s orange and purple and some others colors I think too (I really only care about orange and purple usually). The scoring frame takes a bit to get used to, but is necessary to visualize which cones receive the correct amount of points. The Op comes through again with some choice components here.
So again, I personally know the designer and want to offer that disclaimer. That said, whether I know him or not, this is another great game. I reviewed Gekitai some months ago and was enamored with it as a wonderful abstract, and Hues and Cues gets me again. I love the components, the game play is simple and fast, and I haven’t really played a game too similar. I guess the closest games I can compare it to would be Concept and Codenames. You have to be very exact when giving cues to others (Concept) using one-word and two-word cues (Codenames). It seems super easy to be able to describe a color, but when you look at your chosen hue and can’t even think of a one-word cue and you’re just sitting there while the other players are anxiously awaiting your utterance, you can feel the confidence sweating out of your body.
For one example of actual gameplay, a cue was given, “Western.” My wife and I, alums of Western Illinois University, immediately started finding the correct purple hue because WIU’s colors are purple and gold. However, another player started searching the browns because they thought the cue was guiding the players to Western movies or the Wild West. So there may be conflicts, or different ideas and interpretations of the cues given that can make the whole group giggle incessantly, or times where the game is near the end and you know you need at least 3 points to be in the running and you reallllllly want to hit on the exact hue. So this one can make you feel like you are Bob Ross colormaster, or like you can’t even remember what red even is anymore.
That said, this is NOT a game for our colorblind friends, as it revolved heavily on being able to distinguish color differences, but for everyone else this is a hit. I love that I have to think of things and items and concepts in terms of color to describe instead of any other values, and that is very challenging for me. I love being able to look at the board and have 20 options when the cue given is, “Penny.” I love laughing at some of the amusing cues given or trying to figure out what the hey someone even means with their cues. It’s a wonderful stressful game (for me and the way my mind works) but it has gone over smashingly with everyone to whom I have introduced it. If you are looking for a uniquely-themed party (!) game that isn’t an Apples to Apples or Mafia clone, then you certainly owe it to yourself to check out Hues and Cues. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rainbowy 11 / 12. Hugh Jackman would certainly approve, and would probably like to come to your house to play your copy.
Hues and Cues is a party game of describing colors using one- and two-word cues (a la the hit game show Password from back in the day). As each player is attempting to guess the correct color, and populate the areas immediately adjacent to it, chances for big-time points are plentiful, but I’ll tell you what – coming up with cues proves to be a bit more challenging than one might assume.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a retail copy of this game for the purposes of this review. Though I know the designer personally, I will be reviewing this game as an impartial judge. -T
To setup a game of Hues and Cues, shuffle the large deck of cue cards to be drawn from, lay out the giant board, set aside the scoring frame for now, and give each player the three cones of their selected color. Place one of these cones on the board to be used as a scoring token, and the game is ready to be played!
A game of Hues and Cues will be played over several rounds where each player will act as the cue giver for at least one round, depending on number of players (unless you play with my wife, in which case games can last many many more rounds than suggested). The cue giver will draw a card from the deck, choose a color hue from it, and think of a one-word cue to offer the group. Once the cue is given, in clockwise fashion, each other player will place one of their cones on a color box on the main board. Once complete, the cue giver will then offer a two-word cue to the group, if they so choose… Again the players will place their other cone in a box (either near their original choice or somewhere completely different). When all players have placed their second cone, the cue giver will place upon the board the scoring frame with the chosen hue’s coordinates directly in the center of the frame.
If a player has placed a cone directly on the correct coordinate box, they score 3 points. If a cone resides within the scoring frame (the other 8 boxes surrounding the correct box), they receive 2 points. For every cone just outside the scoring frame surrounding it, the player will receive 1 point. For each cone within the scoring frame the cue giver will score 1 point.
The game ends after each player has had one or two turns to be cue giver, depending on player count and house rules for game end rounds. The player with the most points will be deemed the winner and will have quality bragging rights for the night.
Components. Guys and gals, these components are great. The board is HUGE, but also necessary because there are tons of color hues printed on it. The cards are nice, and the game comes with a giant stack of them. The cones are colored cones. There’s orange and purple and some others colors I think too (I really only care about orange and purple usually). The scoring frame takes a bit to get used to, but is necessary to visualize which cones receive the correct amount of points. The Op comes through again with some choice components here.
So again, I personally know the designer and want to offer that disclaimer. That said, whether I know him or not, this is another great game. I reviewed Gekitai some months ago and was enamored with it as a wonderful abstract, and Hues and Cues gets me again. I love the components, the game play is simple and fast, and I haven’t really played a game too similar. I guess the closest games I can compare it to would be Concept and Codenames. You have to be very exact when giving cues to others (Concept) using one-word and two-word cues (Codenames). It seems super easy to be able to describe a color, but when you look at your chosen hue and can’t even think of a one-word cue and you’re just sitting there while the other players are anxiously awaiting your utterance, you can feel the confidence sweating out of your body.
For one example of actual gameplay, a cue was given, “Western.” My wife and I, alums of Western Illinois University, immediately started finding the correct purple hue because WIU’s colors are purple and gold. However, another player started searching the browns because they thought the cue was guiding the players to Western movies or the Wild West. So there may be conflicts, or different ideas and interpretations of the cues given that can make the whole group giggle incessantly, or times where the game is near the end and you know you need at least 3 points to be in the running and you reallllllly want to hit on the exact hue. So this one can make you feel like you are Bob Ross colormaster, or like you can’t even remember what red even is anymore.
That said, this is NOT a game for our colorblind friends, as it revolved heavily on being able to distinguish color differences, but for everyone else this is a hit. I love that I have to think of things and items and concepts in terms of color to describe instead of any other values, and that is very challenging for me. I love being able to look at the board and have 20 options when the cue given is, “Penny.” I love laughing at some of the amusing cues given or trying to figure out what the hey someone even means with their cues. It’s a wonderful stressful game (for me and the way my mind works) but it has gone over smashingly with everyone to whom I have introduced it. If you are looking for a uniquely-themed party (!) game that isn’t an Apples to Apples or Mafia clone, then you certainly owe it to yourself to check out Hues and Cues. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rainbowy 11 / 12. Hugh Jackman would certainly approve, and would probably like to come to your house to play your copy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Real Steel (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Boxing movies have been a staple of Hollywood for decades. Some of the earliest celluloid offerings documented pugilistic bouts in films such as Raging Bull, The Fighter, and the iconic Rocky series and helped boxing cement itself in both popular and cinematic culture.
In the film “Real Steel”, Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a down-on-his-luck promoter whose best days are definitely behind him. In the near-future setting of the film, robots have replaced humans in the boxing ring and Charlie is constantly and desperately looking for the next big thing to help him claim a little fame and a lot of fortune.
Following the loss of his fighting robot, Charlie is summoned to Texas after the passing of his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his son. Charlie is eager to sign over the guardianship of his son, Max, to Max’s aunt, but after noticing her wealthy husband, decides to take advantage of the situation. Charlie makes a deal to sign over the guardianship of his son Max, (Dakota Goyo) in exchange for a large sum of money which he plans to use to get back into the robot fighting game. The catch for Charlie is that he must watch Max for the summer so Max’s future parents can take a planned trip to Italy.
Max is quickly thrown into the robot-fighting world when he forces his dad to take him along to a bout. Unfortunately, it’s yet another painful loss for Charlie and their first father-son trip ends with them scouring a junkyard for robot replacement parts. It’s Max who literally stumbles across an old robot and becomes convinced that the discarded machine could become a champion given the right conditions. Despite his misgivings, Charlie agrees to train the robot and in doing so gets to reconnect with his estranged son. Charlie is given a shot at redemption when Max’s robot becomes a fighting success and starts to advance through the rankings.
Naturally with increased success comes increased expectations and risks for Charlie and Max’s robot. There are numerous people looking for them to fail, as there is no way that a washed up boxer with a kid and an outdated machine can take on the machines of the professional circuit. Predictably, but still grippingly so, the outdated robot, named Atom, makes his way from seedy fighting pits to upscale arenas. Eventually the Atom team is given a shot at the big time which, as fans of sports films know, is destined to end with a climactic bout with the larger-than-life champion.
What sets “Real Steel” apart from other CGI laden action films is the human element and emotional connections you make with the characters, and even the blue-eyed junkyard robot itself. Although Atom is a CGI construct of a machine, you find yourself pulling for this unlikely underdog just as much its flesh and blood costars. The action sequences are intense and amazing to look at but never overshadow the underlying storyline of love and redemption.
Jackman gives a believable performance as a seemingly callous individual with no redeeming qualities. (Remember, he essentially sold his son). Evangaline Lily, is solid and likeable in a supporting role as Charlie’s old friend and former love interest. Goyo, fresh off his work playing the younger Thor in this past summer’s blockbuster, does a remarkable job in what is likely his breakout role. He has the spunky innocence of youth with a maturity that I had not seen in any young actor since Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense.
“Real Steel” may not be the most original film, as aside from the robots this is a boxing tale that is been told many times before. I definitely saw lots of elements of the original Rocky but still found the film extremely enjoyable and entertaining as well as one of the most pleasant surprises of the year. It is rumored that a sequel is already in production and I actually hope that this is the case. This is one story I certainly wouldn’t mind going a few extra rounds with.
In the film “Real Steel”, Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a down-on-his-luck promoter whose best days are definitely behind him. In the near-future setting of the film, robots have replaced humans in the boxing ring and Charlie is constantly and desperately looking for the next big thing to help him claim a little fame and a lot of fortune.
Following the loss of his fighting robot, Charlie is summoned to Texas after the passing of his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his son. Charlie is eager to sign over the guardianship of his son, Max, to Max’s aunt, but after noticing her wealthy husband, decides to take advantage of the situation. Charlie makes a deal to sign over the guardianship of his son Max, (Dakota Goyo) in exchange for a large sum of money which he plans to use to get back into the robot fighting game. The catch for Charlie is that he must watch Max for the summer so Max’s future parents can take a planned trip to Italy.
Max is quickly thrown into the robot-fighting world when he forces his dad to take him along to a bout. Unfortunately, it’s yet another painful loss for Charlie and their first father-son trip ends with them scouring a junkyard for robot replacement parts. It’s Max who literally stumbles across an old robot and becomes convinced that the discarded machine could become a champion given the right conditions. Despite his misgivings, Charlie agrees to train the robot and in doing so gets to reconnect with his estranged son. Charlie is given a shot at redemption when Max’s robot becomes a fighting success and starts to advance through the rankings.
Naturally with increased success comes increased expectations and risks for Charlie and Max’s robot. There are numerous people looking for them to fail, as there is no way that a washed up boxer with a kid and an outdated machine can take on the machines of the professional circuit. Predictably, but still grippingly so, the outdated robot, named Atom, makes his way from seedy fighting pits to upscale arenas. Eventually the Atom team is given a shot at the big time which, as fans of sports films know, is destined to end with a climactic bout with the larger-than-life champion.
What sets “Real Steel” apart from other CGI laden action films is the human element and emotional connections you make with the characters, and even the blue-eyed junkyard robot itself. Although Atom is a CGI construct of a machine, you find yourself pulling for this unlikely underdog just as much its flesh and blood costars. The action sequences are intense and amazing to look at but never overshadow the underlying storyline of love and redemption.
Jackman gives a believable performance as a seemingly callous individual with no redeeming qualities. (Remember, he essentially sold his son). Evangaline Lily, is solid and likeable in a supporting role as Charlie’s old friend and former love interest. Goyo, fresh off his work playing the younger Thor in this past summer’s blockbuster, does a remarkable job in what is likely his breakout role. He has the spunky innocence of youth with a maturity that I had not seen in any young actor since Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense.
“Real Steel” may not be the most original film, as aside from the robots this is a boxing tale that is been told many times before. I definitely saw lots of elements of the original Rocky but still found the film extremely enjoyable and entertaining as well as one of the most pleasant surprises of the year. It is rumored that a sequel is already in production and I actually hope that this is the case. This is one story I certainly wouldn’t mind going a few extra rounds with.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.