Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bullet to the Head (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Action icon Sylvester Stallone follows up his smash hit “The Expendables 2” with a turn as a New Orleans hitman on a mission of revenge in “Bullet to the Head”. Produced by Walter Hill, who brought us such classics as the “Alien” series and directed films such as “Red Heat” and “48 Hours”, his signature style is evident throughout.
Stallone plays James Bonomo, a.k.a. Jimmy Bobo, a thug with a long rap sheet and few friends. After celebrating a successful contract hit, his partner is brutally killed and an attempt is made on Jimmy’s life as well. Suspecting that they’d been setup, James reluctantly meets with a D.C. detective named Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang), who is in town to investigate the murder of his former partner. Fate forces the duo to work with one another despite Kwon’s by-the-book nature and utter disdain for James and his choice of profession. The two soon uncover a large conspiracy that threatens not only their lives but the cities very powerful and elite, making the duo the prime targets for those who will stop at nothing.
Despite having a fairly formulaic plot, the film works very well, thanks in large part to the cast. The two leads work very well with one another, and the fine supporting work by Jason Momoa and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje really set the tone. The action in the film is intense and at times brutal but does not seem gratuitous, making it clear that the characters live in a violent world where accepting death is second nature to the urge to kill.
Stallone gives a very physical performance as the world weary James and you can tell that he went all out for the films action sequences despite the toll his body had to take. The film is based on the graphic novel “Du Plomb dans la Tête” and captures the elements of a classic film noir, with the action of a buddy cop film without pandering to many of the genre stereotypes.
While I enjoyed Schwarzenegger’s “The Last Stand” a bit more, I was very surprised at how enjoyable the film was after being underwhelmed by the trailer. In the end, if you’re a fan of Stallone, and love a good action film, then this is one you will not want to miss.
Stallone plays James Bonomo, a.k.a. Jimmy Bobo, a thug with a long rap sheet and few friends. After celebrating a successful contract hit, his partner is brutally killed and an attempt is made on Jimmy’s life as well. Suspecting that they’d been setup, James reluctantly meets with a D.C. detective named Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang), who is in town to investigate the murder of his former partner. Fate forces the duo to work with one another despite Kwon’s by-the-book nature and utter disdain for James and his choice of profession. The two soon uncover a large conspiracy that threatens not only their lives but the cities very powerful and elite, making the duo the prime targets for those who will stop at nothing.
Despite having a fairly formulaic plot, the film works very well, thanks in large part to the cast. The two leads work very well with one another, and the fine supporting work by Jason Momoa and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje really set the tone. The action in the film is intense and at times brutal but does not seem gratuitous, making it clear that the characters live in a violent world where accepting death is second nature to the urge to kill.
Stallone gives a very physical performance as the world weary James and you can tell that he went all out for the films action sequences despite the toll his body had to take. The film is based on the graphic novel “Du Plomb dans la Tête” and captures the elements of a classic film noir, with the action of a buddy cop film without pandering to many of the genre stereotypes.
While I enjoyed Schwarzenegger’s “The Last Stand” a bit more, I was very surprised at how enjoyable the film was after being underwhelmed by the trailer. In the end, if you’re a fan of Stallone, and love a good action film, then this is one you will not want to miss.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated This Is the End (2013) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
"𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘺, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴."
First time since the theater and - as everyone else has already pointed out - it still remains as infectiously fun as ever. Also as everyone else has pointed out psychopathic, windbreaker-ed Michael Cera in full-on boss mode is some of the greatest comedic offerings of the 21st century. Honestly I've always loved this entire lightning-in-a-bottle idea where Rogen and his friends (all playing self-deprecating caricatures of themselves) are just hanging out at James Franco's place and then the apocalypse happens - where it gets used as little more than an analog to peddle their usual jocular, caustic brand of comedy. These are probably the only people in Hollywood who could even pull off this premise let alone without it coming out as some sort of pretentious vanity project. Wish we had more of the opening party stuff before it gets into the doomsday plot, and it treads in its last act - maybe about 10 or so minutes too long as a whole. But it still rules, and what killer demon design + effectwork. Hill and McBride walk away with it (after being bodied by Cera, of course).
First time since the theater and - as everyone else has already pointed out - it still remains as infectiously fun as ever. Also as everyone else has pointed out psychopathic, windbreaker-ed Michael Cera in full-on boss mode is some of the greatest comedic offerings of the 21st century. Honestly I've always loved this entire lightning-in-a-bottle idea where Rogen and his friends (all playing self-deprecating caricatures of themselves) are just hanging out at James Franco's place and then the apocalypse happens - where it gets used as little more than an analog to peddle their usual jocular, caustic brand of comedy. These are probably the only people in Hollywood who could even pull off this premise let alone without it coming out as some sort of pretentious vanity project. Wish we had more of the opening party stuff before it gets into the doomsday plot, and it treads in its last act - maybe about 10 or so minutes too long as a whole. But it still rules, and what killer demon design + effectwork. Hill and McBride walk away with it (after being bodied by Cera, of course).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love And Friendship (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Beckinsale excels in a comic tale of Girl Power in the 1790’s.
Set in 1790, Kate Beckinsale plays Lady Susan Vernon, an 18th century cuckoo-like ‘MILF’ (actually, more ‘LILF’, but using the ‘Lady’ term loosely) who with her glamourous demeanor is lusted after by both younger beaus as well as married aristocracy: an example being Lord Manwaring (Lochlann O’Mearáin).
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Murder Mystery (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Sandler-ized "Clue" Mystery, Mixed With Rom/Com
Murder Mystery is a 2019 comedy/mystery directed by Kyle Newacheck and written by James Vanderbilt. It was produced by Happy Madison Productions, Endgame Entertainment, Vinson Films, Denver & Delilah Films, Tower Hill Entertainment and Mythology Entertainment and distributed by Netflix. The film stars Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Luke Evans, Gemma Arterton, and Terrence Stamp.
New York police officer, Nick Spits (Adam Sandler) lies about booking a trip to Europe after their 15th anniversary dinner. His wife Audrey (Jennifer Aniston), a hairdresser, thinks they will never visit Europe as he promised at their wedding. Nick scrambles to put together a less than ideal vacation honeymoon when on the plane Audrey meets billionaire Charles Cavendish (Luke Evans) who invites them to join him on his family yacht. As they explore the yacht they meet several eccentric and unusual people who they learn have all gathered to celebrate the upcoming wedding of Charles' former fiancee and his elderly uncle Malcolm Quince (Terrence Stamp). After Quince announces that everyone invited have been cutoff from his money and only his new wife Suzi (Shiori Kutsuna) will receive his inheritance, the lights go out and he is killed with his own dagger before he can sign his new will. Now everyone is a suspect, in this murder mystery.
This movie was great, lots of laughs and had you guessing, who did it. I really enjoy watching mystery/thriller movies and trying to see if I can figure out who the killer is before the reveal and I like how this movie kept me guessing. Of course it doesn't take itself as serious as an actual murder mystery and also pokes fun of some of the cliches and tropes, I had a good time watching it. It reminded me both of the movie The Orient Express and Clue. I give this movie a 6/10.
New York police officer, Nick Spits (Adam Sandler) lies about booking a trip to Europe after their 15th anniversary dinner. His wife Audrey (Jennifer Aniston), a hairdresser, thinks they will never visit Europe as he promised at their wedding. Nick scrambles to put together a less than ideal vacation honeymoon when on the plane Audrey meets billionaire Charles Cavendish (Luke Evans) who invites them to join him on his family yacht. As they explore the yacht they meet several eccentric and unusual people who they learn have all gathered to celebrate the upcoming wedding of Charles' former fiancee and his elderly uncle Malcolm Quince (Terrence Stamp). After Quince announces that everyone invited have been cutoff from his money and only his new wife Suzi (Shiori Kutsuna) will receive his inheritance, the lights go out and he is killed with his own dagger before he can sign his new will. Now everyone is a suspect, in this murder mystery.
This movie was great, lots of laughs and had you guessing, who did it. I really enjoy watching mystery/thriller movies and trying to see if I can figure out who the killer is before the reveal and I like how this movie kept me guessing. Of course it doesn't take itself as serious as an actual murder mystery and also pokes fun of some of the cliches and tropes, I had a good time watching it. It reminded me both of the movie The Orient Express and Clue. I give this movie a 6/10.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jul 19, 2022
Tense and Suspenseful
Part STRANGER THINGS and Part IT, the new Blumhouse film, THE BLACK PHONE, is a surprisingly effective horror/thriller that is reminiscent of the better Stephen King stories - and that just might be because the short story for which this film is based on is written by Joe Hill - Stephen King’s son.
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)