Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben) (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019 (Updated Mar 13, 2019)
Excellent acting from Bardem and (especially) Cruz
I have always liked, but not loved, the English language movies that Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem have been a part of. Part of the issue, I think, is that even though they are dynamic, charismatica and GOOD LOOKING screen presences that embody the very definitioni of the term "MOVIE STAR", they are working in a language that is not their native language, so something, I think, gets lost in translation. So, it was with some excitement that I checked out the Spanish language thriller EVERYBODY KNOWS (Spanish Title: TODOS LO SOBEN).
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Here we go again
I can’t be the only one surprised that the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has managed to withstand five films. Created on a whim by Disney in 2003, the first film propelled Johnny Depp into the lives of movie fans like never before.
However, come 2017 and Depp’s star is sinking faster than the Black Pearl. After three pretty dreadful sequels, the cast reunites for Salazar’s Revenge. But does a change in directors herald a new and exciting path for the plucky pirates?
Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing strongly when ghost sailors led by his nemesis, evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer (Kaya Scodelario and a headstrong young man in the British navy (Brenton Thwaites).
Newcomer directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg craft a film that is magnificent to look at and stunning to listen to, but features all of the same problems as its predecessors. The time really is up on this franchise.
Of the cast, only Javier Bardem’s snarling Salazar makes any sort of lasting impact. In fact, he’s probably the best antagonist the series has ever had and makes for a menacing presence throughout. Depp looks like he’s on autopilot, almost as bored of Jack Sparrow’s drunken antics as we are, and the normally excellent Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Maze Runner) plays a particularly bland female lead during the films running time.
Speaking of which, at 142 minutes, this is one migraine inducing slog. All four previous films have suffered from being overstuffed, and with the extra abundance of characters this time around, it’s even more painful. There simply is no need to create a film that’s nearly two and a half hours long, especially considering the plot is as paint-by-numbers as you can get.
Nevertheless, to look at, Salazar’s Revenge really is breath-taking. The action is filmed confidently and the sets are fantastically detailed using some exceptional practical effects. There are ghost sharks, glistening islands and the motion capture used on Javier Bardem and his crew is seamless. Only the CGI-heavy finale lets the film down. The music is also sublime. Geoff Zanelli’s thunderous melody features the trademark theme-tune mixed with some really lovely orchestral music.
Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge kicks off a summer season filled to the brim with sequels and after the previous film’s poor reception, expectation was almost as low as it is for Transformers: the Last Knight.
What we’ve ended up with is a bit of a double-edged sword then. It’s certainly better than the previous three sequels and almost up to the standard of the 2003 original; the problem is, that film wasn’t particularly good in the first place.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/26/here-we-go-again-pirates-of-the-caribbean-salazars-revenge-review/
However, come 2017 and Depp’s star is sinking faster than the Black Pearl. After three pretty dreadful sequels, the cast reunites for Salazar’s Revenge. But does a change in directors herald a new and exciting path for the plucky pirates?
Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing strongly when ghost sailors led by his nemesis, evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer (Kaya Scodelario and a headstrong young man in the British navy (Brenton Thwaites).
Newcomer directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg craft a film that is magnificent to look at and stunning to listen to, but features all of the same problems as its predecessors. The time really is up on this franchise.
Of the cast, only Javier Bardem’s snarling Salazar makes any sort of lasting impact. In fact, he’s probably the best antagonist the series has ever had and makes for a menacing presence throughout. Depp looks like he’s on autopilot, almost as bored of Jack Sparrow’s drunken antics as we are, and the normally excellent Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Maze Runner) plays a particularly bland female lead during the films running time.
Speaking of which, at 142 minutes, this is one migraine inducing slog. All four previous films have suffered from being overstuffed, and with the extra abundance of characters this time around, it’s even more painful. There simply is no need to create a film that’s nearly two and a half hours long, especially considering the plot is as paint-by-numbers as you can get.
Nevertheless, to look at, Salazar’s Revenge really is breath-taking. The action is filmed confidently and the sets are fantastically detailed using some exceptional practical effects. There are ghost sharks, glistening islands and the motion capture used on Javier Bardem and his crew is seamless. Only the CGI-heavy finale lets the film down. The music is also sublime. Geoff Zanelli’s thunderous melody features the trademark theme-tune mixed with some really lovely orchestral music.
Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge kicks off a summer season filled to the brim with sequels and after the previous film’s poor reception, expectation was almost as low as it is for Transformers: the Last Knight.
What we’ve ended up with is a bit of a double-edged sword then. It’s certainly better than the previous three sequels and almost up to the standard of the 2003 original; the problem is, that film wasn’t particularly good in the first place.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/26/here-we-go-again-pirates-of-the-caribbean-salazars-revenge-review/
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
This Movie has ALL of EVERYTHING
You want Jennifer Lawrence looking awesome?
Here you go, she looks awesome throughout.
You want Javier Bardem imposing and broody?
Fill your boots; imposing and broody throughout.
You want biblical allegories?
Have ALL the allegories.
You want pointless pretention masquerading as art?
(sigh) Here's ALL THE POINTLESS PRETENTION MASQUERADING AS ART!
There is so much about this movies to find annoying that it seems churlish to single just one or two out. So, in lieu of that, I will merely recount the level of annoying critique concerning this movie that I have seen on other sites;
Position 1 - "If you don't like/understand this movie, you aren't intelligent enough."
Position 2 - "This was b@llocks."
Both reviews are highly unhelpful as starting from a standpoint that you are better than other people viewing it (position 1) instantly flags you as a bit of a c-nt. A three word review (position2) is also pointless in the extreme and comes off as troll-ish. Minimum a review should be is 15 words (www.twitter.com/15wordreviews).
If you are curious enough then go and watch it, if you aren't well, I wouldn't bother.
Here you go, she looks awesome throughout.
You want Javier Bardem imposing and broody?
Fill your boots; imposing and broody throughout.
You want biblical allegories?
Have ALL the allegories.
You want pointless pretention masquerading as art?
(sigh) Here's ALL THE POINTLESS PRETENTION MASQUERADING AS ART!
There is so much about this movies to find annoying that it seems churlish to single just one or two out. So, in lieu of that, I will merely recount the level of annoying critique concerning this movie that I have seen on other sites;
Position 1 - "If you don't like/understand this movie, you aren't intelligent enough."
Position 2 - "This was b@llocks."
Both reviews are highly unhelpful as starting from a standpoint that you are better than other people viewing it (position 1) instantly flags you as a bit of a c-nt. A three word review (position2) is also pointless in the extreme and comes off as troll-ish. Minimum a review should be is 15 words (www.twitter.com/15wordreviews).
If you are curious enough then go and watch it, if you aren't well, I wouldn't bother.
Fred (860 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
What the hell did I just watch?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so normally as soon as I watch a film, I review it. That keeps my initial thoughts fresh. But with "Mother", I just couldn't. Because I don't know what the hell I just watched. It was only at the very end, when I realized Javier Bardem was God, that I knew I had to think back & figure out what this mess was about. And so, I slept on it. And here's the way I see it.
Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth, Ed Harris is Adam, Michelle Pfeiffer is Eve. Their sons are of course, Cain & Able & everyone else is the human race. So, now it clicks and I understand what the movie is about. It's a great premise. However, it's a terrible movie.
Let's start with the acting. It is terrible. Normally greats like Lawrence, Harris & Bardem would light up the screen, but here they come across as over-the-top novice actors. I blame the dialogue & the direction, of course. At no point during the film did I feel that any of the actors were even acting. This brings me to the next point.
No one in the film acts like they should act. Now, I get that they are playing people who are the interpretation of biblical beings. But come on. These people barge in to your home and you're like "Can you please...." and "Go downstairs..." when it should be "Get the f*ck out of my house!!!" Perhaps if I knew the meaning before I watched the movie, I would have picked up on the way they were acting in these situations, but even now knowing, I find it so goddamn annoying. That may be the one word that best describes this movie. Annoying. When you want to scream at the screen to tell people how to act in a situation, it's just annoying. There's nothing worse than a movie where someone is treated like shit & they don't do anything about it. That's the entire movie.
Sure, you can sit back & think that people are over-populating the Earth. And that God is super-interested in being worshipped and some people are trying to help the Earth, while others treat it like garbage. Blah blah blah. The movie is still not a good movie. The idea is great & should have made for a great movie, but it's execution is terrible. I would actually think about watching it again, knowing what I know now, but thinking about how bad the movie is, I doubt that would happen. This would probably have been better as a book. I'm giving it 4 points for the idea, but 0 extra points for the movie.
Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth, Ed Harris is Adam, Michelle Pfeiffer is Eve. Their sons are of course, Cain & Able & everyone else is the human race. So, now it clicks and I understand what the movie is about. It's a great premise. However, it's a terrible movie.
Let's start with the acting. It is terrible. Normally greats like Lawrence, Harris & Bardem would light up the screen, but here they come across as over-the-top novice actors. I blame the dialogue & the direction, of course. At no point during the film did I feel that any of the actors were even acting. This brings me to the next point.
No one in the film acts like they should act. Now, I get that they are playing people who are the interpretation of biblical beings. But come on. These people barge in to your home and you're like "Can you please...." and "Go downstairs..." when it should be "Get the f*ck out of my house!!!" Perhaps if I knew the meaning before I watched the movie, I would have picked up on the way they were acting in these situations, but even now knowing, I find it so goddamn annoying. That may be the one word that best describes this movie. Annoying. When you want to scream at the screen to tell people how to act in a situation, it's just annoying. There's nothing worse than a movie where someone is treated like shit & they don't do anything about it. That's the entire movie.
Sure, you can sit back & think that people are over-populating the Earth. And that God is super-interested in being worshipped and some people are trying to help the Earth, while others treat it like garbage. Blah blah blah. The movie is still not a good movie. The idea is great & should have made for a great movie, but it's execution is terrible. I would actually think about watching it again, knowing what I know now, but thinking about how bad the movie is, I doubt that would happen. This would probably have been better as a book. I'm giving it 4 points for the idea, but 0 extra points for the movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Roads Not Taken (2020) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020
Javier Bardem and Elle Fanning act their socks off (1 more)
Robbie Ryan cinematography is Oscar worthy
Pain and not a lot of Glory.
If you like your movies action packed you are going to dislike this movie. If you like light and uplifting stories you are going to positively loathe this one! For everyone else, "The Roads Not Taken" is a very thought-provoking piece of film-making from writer/director Sally Potter that I have a lot of respect for. Even more so, since I learned that the film is based on the director's time caring for her now deceased brother Nic, diagnosed with early onset dementia in 2010.
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have an action film on deck for you and ‘no’ it doesn’t star Matt Damon or Jason Statham. This latest film ‘The Gunman’ stars none other than Sean Penn?! Yes, Sean Penn has decided to step into the action genre in his latest film.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Apr 25, 2020 (Updated Apr 25, 2020)
Epic Fail
People forget that universal started this whole shared universe concept. So the MCU, the DCU, The Conjuring franchise and DC Shared TV shows all copied unverisal. Now universal is trying to copy them, but failed, failed epic.
The plot: Nick Morton is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artifacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
The Dark Universe was a failure, the Dark Universe came and went so fast, it was a blink of a eye and proof it disappeared. Never to be seen or heard from again.
If the dark universe did happpen, their were going to have Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein's Monster, and Johnny Depp as The Invisible Man. And Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll, aka the Nick Fury of this franchise.
This movie tryed to setup five different films with one film, while having like six different plot lines, seven differney genres. This movie didnt know what is was. And thats why it failed.
@Awix, @Erika , @Ross and @LeftSideCut. Said it perfectly in their reviews.
Dont watch this movie, it will put you to sleep and you will forgot about it, when the credits hit. Watch The Mummy trilogy instead or the oringal one, or the hammer studio one.
The plot: Nick Morton is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artifacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
The Dark Universe was a failure, the Dark Universe came and went so fast, it was a blink of a eye and proof it disappeared. Never to be seen or heard from again.
If the dark universe did happpen, their were going to have Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein's Monster, and Johnny Depp as The Invisible Man. And Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll, aka the Nick Fury of this franchise.
This movie tryed to setup five different films with one film, while having like six different plot lines, seven differney genres. This movie didnt know what is was. And thats why it failed.
@Awix, @Erika , @Ross and @LeftSideCut. Said it perfectly in their reviews.
Dont watch this movie, it will put you to sleep and you will forgot about it, when the credits hit. Watch The Mummy trilogy instead or the oringal one, or the hammer studio one.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Biutiful (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
At times, it's difficult to summarize your thoughts about a specific film. It isn't because the film is necessarily so good or bad that it's beyond words, but because you're unsure how to feel about said film until the credits finally roll. Biutiful is such a film.
The film revolves around Uxbal, portrayed by Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men) sporting a mullet, so expectations are already high. Uxbal has just been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, but isn't ready to leave this world. His two children are still young and Uxbal feels that their mother, who's more interested in partaking in promiscuous behavior while dealing with a bipolar disorder, isn't fit to take care of their children. Meanwhile Uxbal supports his family by partnering with both the Chinese and African street merchants that are in the country illegally. Together they sell pirated movies and cheap knockoffs of clothing and accessories made by Chinese men, women, and children that live in a warehouse used as a sweatshop. To top it off, Uxbal has the ability to communicate with the dead and is called upon to help people who have recently passed to let go and move on to the other side. Although hesitant at first, Uxbal has every intention of getting his affairs in order, reconciling his marriage, and making sure his children have someone to take care of them after he's gone. Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned.
Biutiful, its spelling having a simple yet somewhat brilliant explanation, features a lot of symbolism that will go over viewers heads. It also is incredibly similar to Iñárritu's previous works such as 21 Grams and Babel in both style and tone, but is the director's first film to be presented in Spanish. The drama is beyond bleak and practically hopeless. The out of tune soundtrack, the rocks Uxbal gives to his children, and people clutching to the ceiling will leave many scratching their heads. Many ideas seem to be hinted at, but are never fully fleshed out like reflections and shadows moving out of sync from their source. However, the film is driven by Bardem's emotionally draining, physical, and all around powerful performance.
The scene that really makes the entire film worthwhile is the scene in the Chinese warehouse right before Uxbal visits his brother's strip club. It's the most effective, long-lasting, and memorable scene in the film. In the same breath though, what was up with the sound? It was like it was purposely terrible at certain points in the film. At times, it seemed significant to showcase the sound of the characters' heartbeats, but just felt sloppy the one or two other times it occurred. There were also quite a few memorable quotes in the film including, "It's dangerous to trust a man who's hungry."
Biutiful is an unusual drama that is both confusing at times and ridiculously intriguing at others. A vigorously passionate performance by Javier Bardem may not be enough to save what is otherwise a sometimes mindboggling and hellacious journey through the eyes of what seems like the most unlucky man in the world. Even in comparison to his other works, Biutiful seems even more bleak and dreary than Iñárritu's other works. What's bizarre is that the film does give you a strange sense of hope. No matter how bad you think your life currently is or was, this film proves that it can always be worse even if the presentation is more than a little mentally and emotionally exhausting. It's also interesting to note that even though the film leans more to the bizarre side while being downright depressing, it does make a long-lasting impression and sticks with you as you contemplate scenes and occurrences in the film days after you've seen it.
The film revolves around Uxbal, portrayed by Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men) sporting a mullet, so expectations are already high. Uxbal has just been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, but isn't ready to leave this world. His two children are still young and Uxbal feels that their mother, who's more interested in partaking in promiscuous behavior while dealing with a bipolar disorder, isn't fit to take care of their children. Meanwhile Uxbal supports his family by partnering with both the Chinese and African street merchants that are in the country illegally. Together they sell pirated movies and cheap knockoffs of clothing and accessories made by Chinese men, women, and children that live in a warehouse used as a sweatshop. To top it off, Uxbal has the ability to communicate with the dead and is called upon to help people who have recently passed to let go and move on to the other side. Although hesitant at first, Uxbal has every intention of getting his affairs in order, reconciling his marriage, and making sure his children have someone to take care of them after he's gone. Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned.
Biutiful, its spelling having a simple yet somewhat brilliant explanation, features a lot of symbolism that will go over viewers heads. It also is incredibly similar to Iñárritu's previous works such as 21 Grams and Babel in both style and tone, but is the director's first film to be presented in Spanish. The drama is beyond bleak and practically hopeless. The out of tune soundtrack, the rocks Uxbal gives to his children, and people clutching to the ceiling will leave many scratching their heads. Many ideas seem to be hinted at, but are never fully fleshed out like reflections and shadows moving out of sync from their source. However, the film is driven by Bardem's emotionally draining, physical, and all around powerful performance.
The scene that really makes the entire film worthwhile is the scene in the Chinese warehouse right before Uxbal visits his brother's strip club. It's the most effective, long-lasting, and memorable scene in the film. In the same breath though, what was up with the sound? It was like it was purposely terrible at certain points in the film. At times, it seemed significant to showcase the sound of the characters' heartbeats, but just felt sloppy the one or two other times it occurred. There were also quite a few memorable quotes in the film including, "It's dangerous to trust a man who's hungry."
Biutiful is an unusual drama that is both confusing at times and ridiculously intriguing at others. A vigorously passionate performance by Javier Bardem may not be enough to save what is otherwise a sometimes mindboggling and hellacious journey through the eyes of what seems like the most unlucky man in the world. Even in comparison to his other works, Biutiful seems even more bleak and dreary than Iñárritu's other works. What's bizarre is that the film does give you a strange sense of hope. No matter how bad you think your life currently is or was, this film proves that it can always be worse even if the presentation is more than a little mentally and emotionally exhausting. It's also interesting to note that even though the film leans more to the bizarre side while being downright depressing, it does make a long-lasting impression and sticks with you as you contemplate scenes and occurrences in the film days after you've seen it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Johnny Depp returns as Capt. Jack Sparrow in the fifth outing for the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise. Based on the phenomenally popular attraction at Disneyland and Walt Disney World; the latest film “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” finds Jack and his crew once again at odds with British authorities in St. Maarten. Adding Jack’s troubles is a malevolent spirit from his past named Capt. Salazar (Javier Bardem), who seeks to return to the living by exacting his revenge upon Jack. Along for the adventure are a young man named Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites), and a science minded woman named Carina (Kaya Scodelario), who all have their reasons for joining one another on the adventure despite ample levels of mistrust amongst them.
In keeping with the series all sorts of comedic hijinks mixed with action and the supernatural to give audiences a very noisy and destruction filled storyline.
While there is a decent amount of action in the film there were also large gaps where things just plod along which caused me to glance at my watch from time to time during the two-hour runtime of the film. Adding to the issues is the tendency of depth to slur and mumble his lines playing the frequently inebriated Capt. Jack which does hamper some of the better lines in the film.
Well I certainly enjoyed this one much better than the second and third films in the series I kept thinking that I have seen this all before and that this film was essentially a collection of some of the best moments from previous films combined into one. The end result is that I found myself saying that while I would not mind another outing in the series I would also be more than okay they decided to end the cinematic adventures with this film. Diehard fans will likely enjoy this new effort but more casual fans may not have as much patience this time around.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/25/pirates-caribbean-dead-men-tell-no-tales/
In keeping with the series all sorts of comedic hijinks mixed with action and the supernatural to give audiences a very noisy and destruction filled storyline.
While there is a decent amount of action in the film there were also large gaps where things just plod along which caused me to glance at my watch from time to time during the two-hour runtime of the film. Adding to the issues is the tendency of depth to slur and mumble his lines playing the frequently inebriated Capt. Jack which does hamper some of the better lines in the film.
Well I certainly enjoyed this one much better than the second and third films in the series I kept thinking that I have seen this all before and that this film was essentially a collection of some of the best moments from previous films combined into one. The end result is that I found myself saying that while I would not mind another outing in the series I would also be more than okay they decided to end the cinematic adventures with this film. Diehard fans will likely enjoy this new effort but more casual fans may not have as much patience this time around.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/25/pirates-caribbean-dead-men-tell-no-tales/