Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Feb 10, 2018 (Updated Feb 10, 2018)
Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em
Palpably insane fantasy psycho-horror from Darren Aronofsky that seems intentionally designed to alienate and repel mainstream audiences. The presence of Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem seems calculated to lure in innocent passersby for this unhinged tale of... of...
Well, look, Lawrence and Bardem live in a lovely house in the countryside; he is a noted poet, she is his wife, and to begin with all is well. Then mysterious strangers start appearing and dark events threaten to disrupt their idyll. Things get extreme. At points they get extremely extreme.
If this movie was your pet it would attack your furniture and howl at the moon, then fetch you your slippers with a 'who, me?' look on its face. If you're a stickler for things like naturalism and coherence, then it is probably not for you; but Aronofsky creates the fractured sense of living through an unfolding nightmare, with all the non-logic that suggests, rather well, and the stars are all on full power. It's still very nearly the proverbial movie with something to offend everyone, but you can't fault the technical expertise with which it has been made, or the director's success in realising his (highly peculiar) vision for the film.
Well, look, Lawrence and Bardem live in a lovely house in the countryside; he is a noted poet, she is his wife, and to begin with all is well. Then mysterious strangers start appearing and dark events threaten to disrupt their idyll. Things get extreme. At points they get extremely extreme.
If this movie was your pet it would attack your furniture and howl at the moon, then fetch you your slippers with a 'who, me?' look on its face. If you're a stickler for things like naturalism and coherence, then it is probably not for you; but Aronofsky creates the fractured sense of living through an unfolding nightmare, with all the non-logic that suggests, rather well, and the stars are all on full power. It's still very nearly the proverbial movie with something to offend everyone, but you can't fault the technical expertise with which it has been made, or the director's success in realising his (highly peculiar) vision for the film.
Andy K (10821 KP) created a poll about in Movies are the shiz!
Jul 11, 2018
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Let the games begin!
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was an interesting film, the marketing was excellent and I wanted to see it even though I knew almost nothing about it. I knew it was based upon a novel but I hadn't read it. Jennifer Lawrence plays the lead of Katniss Everdeen and in my review of X-Men: First Class, I put her as the stand out performance of the film. I could see that she had something special, but would she be up to the task of carrying the whole film? Would my prediction about her be right?
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Casting (1 more)
Effects
A space Titanic
This is basically Titanic set in space, albeit a much better film than Titanic will ever be.
Let's get it straight, this is not a full blown sci-fi epic. This is a romantic love story set in space, with some sci-fi elements thrown in. As long as you can accept that, then this is a really good film. Yes the romance part of the story is pretty predictable, but for me this didn't matter due to the sheer likeability and chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. They did get a great job of holding a film virtually all on their own, although Michael Sheen was a delight in all of his scenes too. The special effects too were very impressive and this is definitely one of the better films I saw in the new year.
Let's get it straight, this is not a full blown sci-fi epic. This is a romantic love story set in space, with some sci-fi elements thrown in. As long as you can accept that, then this is a really good film. Yes the romance part of the story is pretty predictable, but for me this didn't matter due to the sheer likeability and chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. They did get a great job of holding a film virtually all on their own, although Michael Sheen was a delight in all of his scenes too. The special effects too were very impressive and this is definitely one of the better films I saw in the new year.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Silver Linings Playbook (2012) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Chemistry. It can’t be bought, on screen or off. At the time of Silver Linings, we pretty much knew what a talent Jennifer Lawrence was, but Bradley Cooper was still an unknown, having made a string of bad to awful films where we didn’t get to see what he was really all about as an actor. The director too, despite some interesting efforts hadn’t really nailed it yet. So the joy of this one is seeing it all come together! Nothing is more satisfying than an underdog story that lets you believe it just isn’t going to happen. And then to see the fairytale distilled into reminding you it was never about winning, it was about moving forward and really loving someone for who they truly are, not what they can give. A modern love story that rings true and deserves multiple re-watches.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Titanic in the Sky
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence are two of the world’s most bankable stars. What with Pratt helping to resurrect prehistoric franchises like Jurassic Park and Lawrence turning The Hunger Games series into one of the biggest ever, it seems they are the people Hollywood wants to work with, right here, right now.
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2018
A Sexy spy thriller that would have been better without the SEXY
The new Jennifer Lawrence spy thriller RED SPARROW is being advertised as a "sexy" thriller, and if you watch the trailers for it, you would think it was a Jason Bourne/Mission Impossible-type of action thriller - with "sexy" action - and you would be misled and disappointed.
For, RED SPARROW, is a sexy, intelligent, inner-workings, "out-smart-the-other-guy" type of spy thriller in more of the mode of a John LeCarre novel (like TINKER, TAILOR, SOLIDER, SPY). It does have some action and some GRAPHIC torture scenes, but I would not classify it as an action film, so those looking for that will be bored.
RED SPARROW follows the tale of Bolshoi Ballet Prima Ballerina, Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) who, after an accident ends her ballet career, is drawn into the deadly world of International Intelligence by her Uncle and must her her body as well as her mind to survive.
This is billed - and shot - as a "sexy" thriller with "SEXY" being the primary driving force - and that is too bad, for I found the sex and nudity to be gratuitous and didn't really drive the narrative forward. When the film stopped focusing on this aspect and focused on the mystery - and misdirection - at hand and Dominika's ability to outsmart and outhink those around her, that the film really catches it's footing and is quite good.
Unfortunately, you have to sit through the first 1/2 of this film - the training portion - and that is filled with gratuitous sex and sexual conquest and using your sex to disarm the enemy. It's an unfortunate choice that almost took me out of the movie, so when the (really) good second half of the film came about, I was surprised by it.
But if you can get through that, you'll be rewarded by a pretty good, pretty smart, pretty INTELLIGENT thriller.
Letter Grade: B (C for the 1st half, A for the 2nd half)
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For, RED SPARROW, is a sexy, intelligent, inner-workings, "out-smart-the-other-guy" type of spy thriller in more of the mode of a John LeCarre novel (like TINKER, TAILOR, SOLIDER, SPY). It does have some action and some GRAPHIC torture scenes, but I would not classify it as an action film, so those looking for that will be bored.
RED SPARROW follows the tale of Bolshoi Ballet Prima Ballerina, Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) who, after an accident ends her ballet career, is drawn into the deadly world of International Intelligence by her Uncle and must her her body as well as her mind to survive.
This is billed - and shot - as a "sexy" thriller with "SEXY" being the primary driving force - and that is too bad, for I found the sex and nudity to be gratuitous and didn't really drive the narrative forward. When the film stopped focusing on this aspect and focused on the mystery - and misdirection - at hand and Dominika's ability to outsmart and outhink those around her, that the film really catches it's footing and is quite good.
Unfortunately, you have to sit through the first 1/2 of this film - the training portion - and that is filled with gratuitous sex and sexual conquest and using your sex to disarm the enemy. It's an unfortunate choice that almost took me out of the movie, so when the (really) good second half of the film came about, I was surprised by it.
But if you can get through that, you'll be rewarded by a pretty good, pretty smart, pretty INTELLIGENT thriller.
Letter Grade: B (C for the 1st half, A for the 2nd half)
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Dec 30, 2018
Clever espionage thriller
While Jennifer Lawrence may not be my favorite (or I haven't seen a lot of her films), I thought she held her own and did an amicable job (maybe the accent not so much) through this heavy plot in a slightly too long thriller.
She plays a ballet dancer who is forced t work for the government in trade for state sponsored benefits for her and her mother to continue.
The plot gets a little muddled and confusing as to who is on which side in the middle of the film. People keep switching sides or double crossing each other so it becomes hard to follow at times.
It felt like the film could've lost like 20 minutes and been more coherent and quicker paced. Having not read the book, I cannot compare it (although differing from the book does not make it worse). I'll go to my grave defending that point.
I was never bored while watching and would definitely recommend.
She plays a ballet dancer who is forced t work for the government in trade for state sponsored benefits for her and her mother to continue.
The plot gets a little muddled and confusing as to who is on which side in the middle of the film. People keep switching sides or double crossing each other so it becomes hard to follow at times.
It felt like the film could've lost like 20 minutes and been more coherent and quicker paced. Having not read the book, I cannot compare it (although differing from the book does not make it worse). I'll go to my grave defending that point.
I was never bored while watching and would definitely recommend.
Joe Julians (221 KP) Feb 11, 2018
Andy K (10821 KP) Feb 11, 2018