Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jul 9, 2023
Needed A Spark
Have you ever gone to a live stage play/musical on a Friday or Saturday evening and you can just feel the crackle of excitement and energy in the air and the performers on stage seem to catch that surge of energy and their performances are turned up a notch because of it?
And then, you return to that same theater - for the same show - for a Wednesday matinee and things are just flat. Same show, same performers, same entertainment, but that “spark” just isn’t there?
Such is the case of INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY - the Wednesday Matinee performance of an Indiana Jones adventures.
This James Mangold (FORD v FERRARI) Directed Indiana Jones adventure hits all the right notes - chase scenes, fights on a moving train, treasure hunt/quest for an ancient artifact, Indy getting into (and out of) trouble, etc…but Dial of Destiny never quite elevated itself above the norm.
80 year old Harrison Ford (and some stunt doubles and a boatload of de-aging software) is back, of course, as Indiana Jones and it is like pulling on an old, tattered sweatshirt - very comfortable and comforting. He is aided (in a cameo) by John Rhys-Davies’ Sallah (good to see him in an Indy movie again) and by rock solid additions of Antonio Banderas (ZORRO) and good ol’ Toby Jones (INFAMOUS) as colleagues and fellow adventurers as well as an above-average turn by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (TV’s FLEABAG).
These folks fight Nazis (naturally) and a bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen (ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY) in an adventure that was “just fine” but “nothing special”, all set to a score by 90 year old John Williams(!). Oh, and don’t forget the welcome appearance of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenswood in what was one of the highlight scenes of the film.
Unfortunately, Mangold never elevates these characters, the chases, the escapes, the call backs to earlier Indiana Jones films above a pleasant warmth of memory, recalling all the good times/grand adventures that Indy has taken the audience on throughout the years. This film needed someone/some THING to help elevate it above the norm.
It needed Steven Spielberg to Direct.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And then, you return to that same theater - for the same show - for a Wednesday matinee and things are just flat. Same show, same performers, same entertainment, but that “spark” just isn’t there?
Such is the case of INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY - the Wednesday Matinee performance of an Indiana Jones adventures.
This James Mangold (FORD v FERRARI) Directed Indiana Jones adventure hits all the right notes - chase scenes, fights on a moving train, treasure hunt/quest for an ancient artifact, Indy getting into (and out of) trouble, etc…but Dial of Destiny never quite elevated itself above the norm.
80 year old Harrison Ford (and some stunt doubles and a boatload of de-aging software) is back, of course, as Indiana Jones and it is like pulling on an old, tattered sweatshirt - very comfortable and comforting. He is aided (in a cameo) by John Rhys-Davies’ Sallah (good to see him in an Indy movie again) and by rock solid additions of Antonio Banderas (ZORRO) and good ol’ Toby Jones (INFAMOUS) as colleagues and fellow adventurers as well as an above-average turn by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (TV’s FLEABAG).
These folks fight Nazis (naturally) and a bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen (ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY) in an adventure that was “just fine” but “nothing special”, all set to a score by 90 year old John Williams(!). Oh, and don’t forget the welcome appearance of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenswood in what was one of the highlight scenes of the film.
Unfortunately, Mangold never elevates these characters, the chases, the escapes, the call backs to earlier Indiana Jones films above a pleasant warmth of memory, recalling all the good times/grand adventures that Indy has taken the audience on throughout the years. This film needed someone/some THING to help elevate it above the norm.
It needed Steven Spielberg to Direct.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Knight and Day (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
You’d be forgiven for thinking that a spy film with the likes of Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz could do no wrong, and indeed that’s the view I had, how wrong I was. Despite a fantastic performance from Diaz, Knight & Day falls well short.
There have been numerous comedy spy capers over the years, some of which have been fantastic, like Johnny English and Get Smart for example and others which have been less than stellar; Mr. & Mrs. Smith comes to mind. Unfortunately Knight & Day fits in between the good and the bad and comes out distinctly average.
Problems blight the film from the off stemming from wobbly CGI to ridiculous stunts and lazy direction choices, it seems like director James Mangold went into this project a little half-heartedly.
Tom Cruise plays spy Roy Miller and the film follows his adventures across the globe protecting the elusive ‘Zephyr’ battery which apparently never runs out of power. Needless to say Cameron Diaz plays the ditzy blonde who later becomes the love interest for the film. Whilst Diaz provides a fun and exciting performance, providing many of the movie’s best comedic moments, Cruise feels seriously miscast in a humorous role and he becomes tiresome to watch.
Alas, the issues don’t stop there. For an action film, it’s distinctly lacking in action and the set pieces that are there are lazily choreographed or rendered in shoddy CGI. Considering its less than modest budget (£120m), Knight & Day should’ve been a joy to watch, instead it’s like looking at a TV programme for 109 minutes.
Meanwhile the villains in the film are simply cardboard cut-outs as the writers haven’t given enough thought to fleshing out their characters. Cruise simply points and shoots and bang, they’re dead.
However, all of these problems could’ve been forgiven if the film had some great storytelling – it doesn’t. What should’ve been the best parts of the film are blacked out. The escapes, the fighting and even some of the ending are lost as Mangold decides to get around inexplicable plot events by drugging the main characters. Again, this is a lazy technique which doesn’t work.
It’s a shame, as there are many reasons why this film should’ve been at least a good summer action flick. In reality, Knight & Day simply becomes passable at best with some inexcusably lazy direction choices, dreadful CGI, bad casting and flimsy characters which all add up to a film which is left hanging on the merits of Cameron Diaz.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/09/13/knight-day-2011/
There have been numerous comedy spy capers over the years, some of which have been fantastic, like Johnny English and Get Smart for example and others which have been less than stellar; Mr. & Mrs. Smith comes to mind. Unfortunately Knight & Day fits in between the good and the bad and comes out distinctly average.
Problems blight the film from the off stemming from wobbly CGI to ridiculous stunts and lazy direction choices, it seems like director James Mangold went into this project a little half-heartedly.
Tom Cruise plays spy Roy Miller and the film follows his adventures across the globe protecting the elusive ‘Zephyr’ battery which apparently never runs out of power. Needless to say Cameron Diaz plays the ditzy blonde who later becomes the love interest for the film. Whilst Diaz provides a fun and exciting performance, providing many of the movie’s best comedic moments, Cruise feels seriously miscast in a humorous role and he becomes tiresome to watch.
Alas, the issues don’t stop there. For an action film, it’s distinctly lacking in action and the set pieces that are there are lazily choreographed or rendered in shoddy CGI. Considering its less than modest budget (£120m), Knight & Day should’ve been a joy to watch, instead it’s like looking at a TV programme for 109 minutes.
Meanwhile the villains in the film are simply cardboard cut-outs as the writers haven’t given enough thought to fleshing out their characters. Cruise simply points and shoots and bang, they’re dead.
However, all of these problems could’ve been forgiven if the film had some great storytelling – it doesn’t. What should’ve been the best parts of the film are blacked out. The escapes, the fighting and even some of the ending are lost as Mangold decides to get around inexplicable plot events by drugging the main characters. Again, this is a lazy technique which doesn’t work.
It’s a shame, as there are many reasons why this film should’ve been at least a good summer action flick. In reality, Knight & Day simply becomes passable at best with some inexcusably lazy direction choices, dreadful CGI, bad casting and flimsy characters which all add up to a film which is left hanging on the merits of Cameron Diaz.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/09/13/knight-day-2011/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2019 (Updated Sep 20, 2019)
The crown jewel in Fox's X-Men saga
Logan is easily one of the best comic book movies out there.
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
David McK (3191 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jul 9, 2023
Eels look like snakes? No they don't ...
Harrison Ford is over 80 now.
So fair play to him for returning to one of his most iconic roles, as Doctor Henry Jones Jr aka Indiana Jones, in what must surely by his swansong for that role.
And even more fair play for the film not making light of his age, but working it 'properly' into the plot (which has an absolute bonkers ending), with Jones - at one point - wondering aloud what he is even doing scaling a rock face at his age (and with mention made of the events of Temple of Doom in particular, at this point).
The whole prologue of the film - here, helmed by James Mangold instead of Spielberg - is set during the closing stages of World War II, and sees a CGI de-aged Ford battling Nazis in pursuit of a stolen relic, that leads him to the real McGuffin of the movie, the Dial of the title.
Jump forward to the late 60s, and Jones is retiring from academia when he is visited by the daughter of an old friend who wants his help in recovering said relic.
Initially hesitant - and following the breakup of his marriage to Marion, and, as we later discover, the fate of Mutt - Jones soon finds himself drawn back into the way of his old life.
For my money, this is better than Crystal Skull, with the the Dial as a McGuffin, 'suiting' Indiana Jones better than the sci-fi trappings of that earlier film, and with Phoebe Waller-Bridge a better foil than Shia LaBeouf.
Still not up there with the original trilogy, though.
So fair play to him for returning to one of his most iconic roles, as Doctor Henry Jones Jr aka Indiana Jones, in what must surely by his swansong for that role.
And even more fair play for the film not making light of his age, but working it 'properly' into the plot (which has an absolute bonkers ending), with Jones - at one point - wondering aloud what he is even doing scaling a rock face at his age (and with mention made of the events of Temple of Doom in particular, at this point).
The whole prologue of the film - here, helmed by James Mangold instead of Spielberg - is set during the closing stages of World War II, and sees a CGI de-aged Ford battling Nazis in pursuit of a stolen relic, that leads him to the real McGuffin of the movie, the Dial of the title.
Jump forward to the late 60s, and Jones is retiring from academia when he is visited by the daughter of an old friend who wants his help in recovering said relic.
Initially hesitant - and following the breakup of his marriage to Marion, and, as we later discover, the fate of Mutt - Jones soon finds himself drawn back into the way of his old life.
For my money, this is better than Crystal Skull, with the the Dial as a McGuffin, 'suiting' Indiana Jones better than the sci-fi trappings of that earlier film, and with Phoebe Waller-Bridge a better foil than Shia LaBeouf.
Still not up there with the original trilogy, though.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2020
The more films I see by James Mangold, the more I like him.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Third time lucky?
The X-Men franchise is as convoluted as Spaghetti Junction. Littered with constantly changing timelines, it has become the epitome of tiring and fans are getting exasperated too. With every great film (X2, X-Men: Days of Future Past), the series has followed it with some truly awful movies (X-Men: Origins Wolverine, X-Men: Apocalypse).
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Knight and Day (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Knight and Day, directed by James Mangold (previous director of 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line), is an uninspiring, uninteresting action movie. Getting both of those words to work with the phrase “action movie” is quite a challenge, but somehow, through a group effort, it was pulled off. The movie itself gets boring primarily because the Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz have little to no chemistry between them both. Useless action sequences merely add to the feeling that all those involved were ruining a great premise for an action/date movie.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Hugh Jackman returns for his final performance of his iconic Wolverine character in “Logan” and if this is his last outing, he has picked the best of the series for his swan song.
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
