Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Spider-man, starring Tobey Maguire, came out on 14th June 2002. Co-starring Kirsten Dunst, James Franco and Willem Dafoe. My god doesn't every one look young!
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“When the man comes around”
At last – a superhero movie with real heart… (and not just the chunks over the knuckle blades!). Logan is a bit of a revelation. I was reluctant to go and see it, since a) I’m a lukewarm X-Men fan at best and b) I hadn’t seen either of the previous two Wolverine spin-off films. (Seeing the other Wolverine films, by the way, is not a pre-requisite for enjoying this one). After a long day at work, my choice was “Logan” or “Kong: Skull Island”. I voted for this one, and I’m so glad I did.
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2 Guns (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Verdict: Easy to Watch Action Film
Story: 2 Guns starts as we see Bobby (Washington) & Stig (Wahlberg) planning their latest bank robbery before flashing back to one week earlier. We learn that Bobby has been undercover working for his handler Deb (Patton) in the DEA who are trying to take down Papi Greco (Olmos). We also find out Stig’s real motives as he is also undercover but with the military.
When the two find themselves being betrayed they must re-team up to take out the people that framed them making everything right with all the people they have stolen from.
2 Guns is an action comedy that is a real jumper because we start in the middle before going to beginning before getting to the end which automatically doesn’t help pull us in. We never really get the idea of how the two first meet and then when everything happens it all become overly complicated. If you want a simple action film this isn’t going to be for you but in the end this will need you to keep attention. Having too many people involved works for a flat out comedy but the overly serious side of certain moments pulls it all down.
Actor Review
Denzel Washington: Bobby is the undercover DEA agent that is trying to take down a drug cartel with his young partner Stig. When he gets betrayed by Stig he finds himself needing to make up for the crime only to find out he is involved in a bigger picture and having to work with Stig once more. Denzel is good in this role but it won’t be one you will remember.denzel
Mark Wahlberg: Stig is the young partner of Bobby, but he is secretly undercover for the military. When the money is stolen he learns the truth that only puts his own life at risk. He must re-team with Bobby to stop the people out to kill the both of them. Mark is good in this role which is what you would expect him to be in.stuif
Paula Patton: Deb is the former lover and connection with the DEA for Bobby, she has to supporting him whenever he gets the next part of the information. Paula is a solid supporting performance without doing too much.
Edward James Olmos: Papi Greco is the drug lord that both men are trying to take down. He has a reputation of being deadly that makes him one of the deadliest men after our leading men. Edward is solid but is just one of the main villains.
Support Cast: 2 Guns has a big supporting cast that all help with the final outcome of the film without being overly memorable or original.
Director Review: Baltasar Kormakur – Baltasar gives us a solid action film that could be enjoyed through the eyes of the audience.
Action: 2 Guns has a mix of action sequence which involves car chase, fights and fire fights.
Comedy: 2 Guns has good laughs between the two leads but otherwise doesn’t have much.
Crime: 2 Guns puts us through a crime world where we have a group of different men after the money.
Thriller: 2 Guns tries to keep us on the edge throughout but isn’t enough to pull us in.
Settings: 2 Guns has small town settings which are hard to keep on top of where we actually are.
Special Effects: 2 Guns has a couple of needs to effects but not the best when used.
Suggestion: 2 Guns is one for the action fans to try but otherwise you can miss it. (Try It)
Best Part: Car chase between Bobby and Stig.
Worst Part: Too many characters.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $61 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes
Tagline: 2 Guns, 1 Bank.
Overall: Overly complicated action film that doesn’t have enough to pull us in.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/24/2-guns-2013/
Story: 2 Guns starts as we see Bobby (Washington) & Stig (Wahlberg) planning their latest bank robbery before flashing back to one week earlier. We learn that Bobby has been undercover working for his handler Deb (Patton) in the DEA who are trying to take down Papi Greco (Olmos). We also find out Stig’s real motives as he is also undercover but with the military.
When the two find themselves being betrayed they must re-team up to take out the people that framed them making everything right with all the people they have stolen from.
2 Guns is an action comedy that is a real jumper because we start in the middle before going to beginning before getting to the end which automatically doesn’t help pull us in. We never really get the idea of how the two first meet and then when everything happens it all become overly complicated. If you want a simple action film this isn’t going to be for you but in the end this will need you to keep attention. Having too many people involved works for a flat out comedy but the overly serious side of certain moments pulls it all down.
Actor Review
Denzel Washington: Bobby is the undercover DEA agent that is trying to take down a drug cartel with his young partner Stig. When he gets betrayed by Stig he finds himself needing to make up for the crime only to find out he is involved in a bigger picture and having to work with Stig once more. Denzel is good in this role but it won’t be one you will remember.denzel
Mark Wahlberg: Stig is the young partner of Bobby, but he is secretly undercover for the military. When the money is stolen he learns the truth that only puts his own life at risk. He must re-team with Bobby to stop the people out to kill the both of them. Mark is good in this role which is what you would expect him to be in.stuif
Paula Patton: Deb is the former lover and connection with the DEA for Bobby, she has to supporting him whenever he gets the next part of the information. Paula is a solid supporting performance without doing too much.
Edward James Olmos: Papi Greco is the drug lord that both men are trying to take down. He has a reputation of being deadly that makes him one of the deadliest men after our leading men. Edward is solid but is just one of the main villains.
Support Cast: 2 Guns has a big supporting cast that all help with the final outcome of the film without being overly memorable or original.
Director Review: Baltasar Kormakur – Baltasar gives us a solid action film that could be enjoyed through the eyes of the audience.
Action: 2 Guns has a mix of action sequence which involves car chase, fights and fire fights.
Comedy: 2 Guns has good laughs between the two leads but otherwise doesn’t have much.
Crime: 2 Guns puts us through a crime world where we have a group of different men after the money.
Thriller: 2 Guns tries to keep us on the edge throughout but isn’t enough to pull us in.
Settings: 2 Guns has small town settings which are hard to keep on top of where we actually are.
Special Effects: 2 Guns has a couple of needs to effects but not the best when used.
Suggestion: 2 Guns is one for the action fans to try but otherwise you can miss it. (Try It)
Best Part: Car chase between Bobby and Stig.
Worst Part: Too many characters.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $61 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes
Tagline: 2 Guns, 1 Bank.
Overall: Overly complicated action film that doesn’t have enough to pull us in.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/24/2-guns-2013/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Genuinely Moving
The Marvel Studios movie train has been non-stop over the last few years, from Iron Man to The Avengers, it shows no signs of slowing. Now though, a take-over by Disney has ensured both studios enter into rather unknown territory.
The first film from this collaboration is Big Hero 6, an animated superhero film in the same vein as Pixar’s The Incredibles. But does it reach those dizzying heights?
Big Hero 6 follows Hiro Hamada, a 14-year-old robotics prodigy as he goes about his life in the fictional city of San Fransokyo alongside his brother Tadashi. Hiro has lost his way after a family tragedy and it takes his brother’s robot Baymax to help find himself again.
The story unfortunately is the film’s weakest link, being predictable at best and downright clichéd at its worst. In this respect, Big Hero 6 falls well short of the standards set by the majority of Pixar’s movies.
Thankfully, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a match for Disney’s best, if not quite up to the level of last year’s How to Train YourBig_Hero_6_Poster_2 Dragon 2. The city of San Fransokyo is beautifully realised in sweeping, gloriously colourful shots that show of the animation best when they’re from above.
The characters themselves are rendered in painstaking detail and in particular sequences it becomes difficult to tell the film apart from a live-action feature.
Vocal performances are also very good. Ryan Potter plays Hiro as a vulnerable, pre-pubescent teen who by the end of the film comes to realise just who he is exceptionally well. James Cromwell, Maya Rudolph and Damon Wayans also lend their recognisable voices to people in the film.
However, by far the stand-out is Baymax, a hilariously funny healthcare robot. Disney’s animators should be given plaudits for crafting a character which despite its lack of facial features and emotive tones is so engaging to watch.
Unfortunately, when Baymax evolves into super-Baymax, his characterisation suffers and the funny, caring nature of him is lost somewhat.
The final third of the film delves into generic superhero fodder, but picks up again just before the end credits role with a deeply emotive.
Big Hero 6 also gets increasingly dark the further into the movie you get, the comedic elements get muddled in a plot which isn’t quite sure which way it wants to go and young children may find it a little to scary to stomach.
Thankfully the negatives here are far outweighed by the positives and Big Hero 6 steamrolls itself into a moving finale which leaves itself open for a sequel nicely.
Overall, from stunning visuals to engaging characters, Big Hero 6 continues Disney’s penchant for creating fun and watchable films. Despite a lack of originality, the character of Baymax makes up for most of the other shortcomings and ensures the generic story is genuinely moving.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/05/genuinely-moving-big-hero-6-review/
The first film from this collaboration is Big Hero 6, an animated superhero film in the same vein as Pixar’s The Incredibles. But does it reach those dizzying heights?
Big Hero 6 follows Hiro Hamada, a 14-year-old robotics prodigy as he goes about his life in the fictional city of San Fransokyo alongside his brother Tadashi. Hiro has lost his way after a family tragedy and it takes his brother’s robot Baymax to help find himself again.
The story unfortunately is the film’s weakest link, being predictable at best and downright clichéd at its worst. In this respect, Big Hero 6 falls well short of the standards set by the majority of Pixar’s movies.
Thankfully, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a match for Disney’s best, if not quite up to the level of last year’s How to Train YourBig_Hero_6_Poster_2 Dragon 2. The city of San Fransokyo is beautifully realised in sweeping, gloriously colourful shots that show of the animation best when they’re from above.
The characters themselves are rendered in painstaking detail and in particular sequences it becomes difficult to tell the film apart from a live-action feature.
Vocal performances are also very good. Ryan Potter plays Hiro as a vulnerable, pre-pubescent teen who by the end of the film comes to realise just who he is exceptionally well. James Cromwell, Maya Rudolph and Damon Wayans also lend their recognisable voices to people in the film.
However, by far the stand-out is Baymax, a hilariously funny healthcare robot. Disney’s animators should be given plaudits for crafting a character which despite its lack of facial features and emotive tones is so engaging to watch.
Unfortunately, when Baymax evolves into super-Baymax, his characterisation suffers and the funny, caring nature of him is lost somewhat.
The final third of the film delves into generic superhero fodder, but picks up again just before the end credits role with a deeply emotive.
Big Hero 6 also gets increasingly dark the further into the movie you get, the comedic elements get muddled in a plot which isn’t quite sure which way it wants to go and young children may find it a little to scary to stomach.
Thankfully the negatives here are far outweighed by the positives and Big Hero 6 steamrolls itself into a moving finale which leaves itself open for a sequel nicely.
Overall, from stunning visuals to engaging characters, Big Hero 6 continues Disney’s penchant for creating fun and watchable films. Despite a lack of originality, the character of Baymax makes up for most of the other shortcomings and ensures the generic story is genuinely moving.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/05/genuinely-moving-big-hero-6-review/
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
It was difficult to avoid trailers for James Gunn’s Brightburn, and as a result it was difficult to avoid my excitement too. I had very much been looking forward to this one, as I’m always interested in characters that use their powers for evil instead of good.
In a similar vein to Josh Trank’s Chronicle, the film follows a teenager who starts to realise he’s got special abilities, but ends up having very dark intentions. For Brightburn, though, it’s because Brandon Bryer (Jackson A Dunn) is not of this world, and he was adopted by Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) who desperately tried to hide the truth from him.
Jackson A. Dunn is undoubtedly the star of the show here, and a young actor that I’m incredibly impressed with. His emotional range is really fantastic, and the way he portrays genuine psychopathic behaviour feels almost too real. I did find myself lost in his performance, and scared of him too. I really hope to see him on another project in the near future.
Elizabeth Banks and David Denman shared great chemistry too, with conflicting opinions as Brandon starts to uncover who he really is. In a way its cliched, a couple fail to conceive and a child (or ‘blessing’ as Tori often calls it) falls to earth, but it takes that trope and turns it into something monstrous that tears the family apart. There’s nothing angelic about this kid.
The biggest downside to Brightburn for me, is that the trailer gave away all the film’s best moments. I could predict what was going to happen, and there were no real surprises for me. The scenes the trailer missed out were disappointingly average, and nothing special. It could’ve benefited from teasing the audience more.
There is also one scene in particular that has very bad special effects, and ruined the emotion I was supposed to be feeling during it. I wish they had decided to do something more subtly brutal here, as that would’ve upped the emotional factor during this crucial moment.
It’s even more disappointing because I did enjoy certain effects, and the use of the POV camera on victims to make it more disturbingly intimate. I was also impressed with the level of gore and the creativeness of the murders, and how it helped to shape Brandon’s character development throughout.
The film had the potential to be more well polished, but sadly repeatedly opted for big and bold effects that were too jarring for me as a viewer. Having said that, the strength of Brandon’s character, the dynamics between the family, and the strength of one or two scenes helped to redeem the film a bit.
It’s entertaining to watch on the big screen with some effective scares and some gory moments that aren’t for those with a weak stomach. I’m happy I spent an evening watching it, but I can’t say I’ll be rushing to see it again.
In a similar vein to Josh Trank’s Chronicle, the film follows a teenager who starts to realise he’s got special abilities, but ends up having very dark intentions. For Brightburn, though, it’s because Brandon Bryer (Jackson A Dunn) is not of this world, and he was adopted by Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) who desperately tried to hide the truth from him.
Jackson A. Dunn is undoubtedly the star of the show here, and a young actor that I’m incredibly impressed with. His emotional range is really fantastic, and the way he portrays genuine psychopathic behaviour feels almost too real. I did find myself lost in his performance, and scared of him too. I really hope to see him on another project in the near future.
Elizabeth Banks and David Denman shared great chemistry too, with conflicting opinions as Brandon starts to uncover who he really is. In a way its cliched, a couple fail to conceive and a child (or ‘blessing’ as Tori often calls it) falls to earth, but it takes that trope and turns it into something monstrous that tears the family apart. There’s nothing angelic about this kid.
The biggest downside to Brightburn for me, is that the trailer gave away all the film’s best moments. I could predict what was going to happen, and there were no real surprises for me. The scenes the trailer missed out were disappointingly average, and nothing special. It could’ve benefited from teasing the audience more.
There is also one scene in particular that has very bad special effects, and ruined the emotion I was supposed to be feeling during it. I wish they had decided to do something more subtly brutal here, as that would’ve upped the emotional factor during this crucial moment.
It’s even more disappointing because I did enjoy certain effects, and the use of the POV camera on victims to make it more disturbingly intimate. I was also impressed with the level of gore and the creativeness of the murders, and how it helped to shape Brandon’s character development throughout.
The film had the potential to be more well polished, but sadly repeatedly opted for big and bold effects that were too jarring for me as a viewer. Having said that, the strength of Brandon’s character, the dynamics between the family, and the strength of one or two scenes helped to redeem the film a bit.
It’s entertaining to watch on the big screen with some effective scares and some gory moments that aren’t for those with a weak stomach. I’m happy I spent an evening watching it, but I can’t say I’ll be rushing to see it again.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
First up, the latest Coen Brothers effort, the slightly offputtingly titled The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. I mean, it sounds like a working title at best, and doesn’t exactly draw you in. Oh, and it’s a Western, and Tim Blake Nelson sings in it – those Coen’s never did much care about box office, huh? And what’s more it is an anthology film; five or six short vignettes vaguely set in the same dusty landscape of pre industrial America.
I didn’t even know it was an anthology from the trailer, or poster. I thought the entire thing was about the crooning Blake Nelson, and as much as I love the Coen’s back catalogue, I wasn’t overly keen. Then the reviews, and a few Oscar nominations made me sit up a bit, feeling a bit silly that I had ever doubted the partnership that has offered the most consistently interesting off-kilter films of the last 40 years.
Immediately, I was struck by two things: a sense of a whimsical mood, and a breathtaking cinematography capturing a landscape. This was definitely a Coen film. I found myself enjoying the humour and inventiveness effortlessly. And then being surprised to find we were moving on to another story before even 15 minutes had passed!
A bit with James Franco and an unfortunate lynch mob / hanging situation; a wry piece about Tom Waits panning for gold and protecting his find; a more serious (and mood breakingly longer) piece about an unlikely love between a worldly wagon trainer and a naive young woman; and finally something like a Western ghost story as strangers talk inside a carriage heading to a mysterious location. And with a somewhat anti-climactic end… we were out. Did I miss something? Then it must have been forgettable.
I liked all the sections to degrees, and admired how they were all unique but dovetailed together well. There is certainly plenty to enjoy and even love in this strange experiment of a film. The Tom Waits section was my favourite, and the long wagon train section my least favourite, in simple terms.
However the overall impression is that it somehow isn’t quite fully there… something doesn’t hold it together as a complete film. It is hard to put your finger on it, but it is something to do with the story arc in terms of energy. It would maybe have been better served with a more upbeat climax. But who am I to question these guys?
Would I watch it again? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to everyone? With caution, yeah sure. Will I be adding it to any best of lists any time soon? Capagorically not. Enjoy it for what it is. Even watch each piece in isolation maybe. Look in wonder at how Joel and Ethan can still frame an image or capture a detail. And then let it fly away, as inconsequential as a dream.
I didn’t even know it was an anthology from the trailer, or poster. I thought the entire thing was about the crooning Blake Nelson, and as much as I love the Coen’s back catalogue, I wasn’t overly keen. Then the reviews, and a few Oscar nominations made me sit up a bit, feeling a bit silly that I had ever doubted the partnership that has offered the most consistently interesting off-kilter films of the last 40 years.
Immediately, I was struck by two things: a sense of a whimsical mood, and a breathtaking cinematography capturing a landscape. This was definitely a Coen film. I found myself enjoying the humour and inventiveness effortlessly. And then being surprised to find we were moving on to another story before even 15 minutes had passed!
A bit with James Franco and an unfortunate lynch mob / hanging situation; a wry piece about Tom Waits panning for gold and protecting his find; a more serious (and mood breakingly longer) piece about an unlikely love between a worldly wagon trainer and a naive young woman; and finally something like a Western ghost story as strangers talk inside a carriage heading to a mysterious location. And with a somewhat anti-climactic end… we were out. Did I miss something? Then it must have been forgettable.
I liked all the sections to degrees, and admired how they were all unique but dovetailed together well. There is certainly plenty to enjoy and even love in this strange experiment of a film. The Tom Waits section was my favourite, and the long wagon train section my least favourite, in simple terms.
However the overall impression is that it somehow isn’t quite fully there… something doesn’t hold it together as a complete film. It is hard to put your finger on it, but it is something to do with the story arc in terms of energy. It would maybe have been better served with a more upbeat climax. But who am I to question these guys?
Would I watch it again? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to everyone? With caution, yeah sure. Will I be adding it to any best of lists any time soon? Capagorically not. Enjoy it for what it is. Even watch each piece in isolation maybe. Look in wonder at how Joel and Ethan can still frame an image or capture a detail. And then let it fly away, as inconsequential as a dream.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Rocky (1976) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Underdog Tale
Rocky is a classic. A tale of a underdog rising to the top. At the same time its a story of rocky. A underdog, a fighter, a lover, a southpaw, a man who wont give up.
The plot: Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), a small-time boxer from working-class Philadelphia, is arbitrarily chosen to take on the reigning world heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers), when the undefeated fighter's scheduled opponent is injured. While training with feisty former bantamweight contender Mickey Goldmill (Burgess Meredith), Rocky tentatively begins a relationship with Adrian (Talia Shire), the wallflower sister of his meat-packer pal Paulie (Burt Young).
The film, made on a budget of just over $1 million, was a sleeper hit; it earned $225 million in global box office receipts, becoming the highest-grossing film of 1976. The film was critically acclaimed and solidified Stallone's career as well as commenced his rise to prominence as a major movie star of that era.
Among other accolades, it went on to receive ten Academy Award nominations, winning three, including Best Picture. In 2006, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". Rocky is considered to be one of the greatest sports films ever made and was ranked as the second-best in the genre, after Raging Bull, by the American Film Institute in 2008.
The film has spawned seven sequels: Rocky II (1979), Rocky III (1982), Rocky IV (1985), Rocky V (1990), Rocky Balboa (2006), Creed (2015), and Creed II (2018). Stallone portrays Rocky in all eight films, wrote seven of the eight films, and directed four of the six titular installments.
Sylvester Stallone wrote the screenplay for Rocky in three and a half days.
United Artists liked Stallone's script, and viewed it as a possible vehicle for a well-established star such as Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal, Burt Reynolds, or James Caan.
Stallone's agents, Rumar and Kubik, insisted that Stallone portray the title character, to the point of issuing an ultimatum. Stallone later said that he would never have forgiven himself, had the film become a success with somebody else in the lead.
During filming, both Stallone and Weathers suffered injuries during the shooting of the final fight; Stallone suffered bruised ribs and Weathers suffered a damaged nose, the opposite injuries of what their characters had.
The first date between Rocky and Adrian, in which Rocky bribes a janitor to allow them to skate after closing hours in a deserted ice skating rink, was shot that way only because of budgetary pressures. This scene was originally scheduled to be shot in a skating rink during regular business hours. However, the producers decided that they could not afford to hire the hundreds of extras that would have been necessary for that scene.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), a small-time boxer from working-class Philadelphia, is arbitrarily chosen to take on the reigning world heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers), when the undefeated fighter's scheduled opponent is injured. While training with feisty former bantamweight contender Mickey Goldmill (Burgess Meredith), Rocky tentatively begins a relationship with Adrian (Talia Shire), the wallflower sister of his meat-packer pal Paulie (Burt Young).
The film, made on a budget of just over $1 million, was a sleeper hit; it earned $225 million in global box office receipts, becoming the highest-grossing film of 1976. The film was critically acclaimed and solidified Stallone's career as well as commenced his rise to prominence as a major movie star of that era.
Among other accolades, it went on to receive ten Academy Award nominations, winning three, including Best Picture. In 2006, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". Rocky is considered to be one of the greatest sports films ever made and was ranked as the second-best in the genre, after Raging Bull, by the American Film Institute in 2008.
The film has spawned seven sequels: Rocky II (1979), Rocky III (1982), Rocky IV (1985), Rocky V (1990), Rocky Balboa (2006), Creed (2015), and Creed II (2018). Stallone portrays Rocky in all eight films, wrote seven of the eight films, and directed four of the six titular installments.
Sylvester Stallone wrote the screenplay for Rocky in three and a half days.
United Artists liked Stallone's script, and viewed it as a possible vehicle for a well-established star such as Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal, Burt Reynolds, or James Caan.
Stallone's agents, Rumar and Kubik, insisted that Stallone portray the title character, to the point of issuing an ultimatum. Stallone later said that he would never have forgiven himself, had the film become a success with somebody else in the lead.
During filming, both Stallone and Weathers suffered injuries during the shooting of the final fight; Stallone suffered bruised ribs and Weathers suffered a damaged nose, the opposite injuries of what their characters had.
The first date between Rocky and Adrian, in which Rocky bribes a janitor to allow them to skate after closing hours in a deserted ice skating rink, was shot that way only because of budgetary pressures. This scene was originally scheduled to be shot in a skating rink during regular business hours. However, the producers decided that they could not afford to hire the hundreds of extras that would have been necessary for that scene.
Its a excellent movie.