Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Between Sicario and Hell or High Water (both of which landed on my year-end best lists for 2015 and 2016 respectively), Taylor Sheridan has already proven to be an incredible talent at crafting slow-burning thrillers that also serve as in-depth character studies. His new film, third as a screenwriter and second as a director, may move at quite a faster pace than his previous two screenplays, but it is no less accomplished, either in plot or in character development. Though some may leave the theater feeling that they haven’t seen anything new, and they’d be right to as there isn’t anything particularly flashy or unique in the direction or cinematography, Wind River however finds its strength in its simplicity. It’s a simple story concerning the death of a young girl on a Wyoming reservation, of the tracker (Jeremy Renner) for whom the circumstance strikes too close to home, and of the presumably untested FBI agent (Elizabeth Olsen) forced to face the darker side of her chosen profession.
For Jeremy Renner, Wind River marks a career best. He displays restraint in a role that others would have played far too arrogantly and when he lets us in to share in his character’s painful past, the melodrama inherent in the dialogue is delivered with dignity and humility. Complimenting his performance beautifully is Gil Birmingham as Martin, the father of the murdered girl. Much like his work opposite Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water, his scenes with Renner are the highlight of the film. Every line he delivers reverberates with truth and with the weight of losing of two children, one whose life is thrown away to drug use and one to an untimely, mysterious death. Veteran actor and longtime favorite of mine, Graham Greene is also on hand to give a competent turn as the local sheriff who in equal measures doles out tension-relieving humor as well as reminding us of the gravity of a bleak situation.
In amongst a predominately-male cast, Elizabeth Olsen shines. This film was an undoubtedly a tough task, as her character is given no soft options, and her performance gave me cause to reflect on a young Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I don’t just draw this comparison because of the fact they both play young agents thrust into a situation beyond their level of experience, but because of the scenes in these films where they are called upon to confidently take command of a room full of men and to show great physicality in moments of unexpected violence. It’s another top mark in her filmography comparable to her breakout in Martha Marcy May Marlene and hopefully, in-between bouts of this bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe nonsense, we’ll continue to see her in roles of some substance.
For Jeremy Renner, Wind River marks a career best. He displays restraint in a role that others would have played far too arrogantly and when he lets us in to share in his character’s painful past, the melodrama inherent in the dialogue is delivered with dignity and humility. Complimenting his performance beautifully is Gil Birmingham as Martin, the father of the murdered girl. Much like his work opposite Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water, his scenes with Renner are the highlight of the film. Every line he delivers reverberates with truth and with the weight of losing of two children, one whose life is thrown away to drug use and one to an untimely, mysterious death. Veteran actor and longtime favorite of mine, Graham Greene is also on hand to give a competent turn as the local sheriff who in equal measures doles out tension-relieving humor as well as reminding us of the gravity of a bleak situation.
In amongst a predominately-male cast, Elizabeth Olsen shines. This film was an undoubtedly a tough task, as her character is given no soft options, and her performance gave me cause to reflect on a young Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I don’t just draw this comparison because of the fact they both play young agents thrust into a situation beyond their level of experience, but because of the scenes in these films where they are called upon to confidently take command of a room full of men and to show great physicality in moments of unexpected violence. It’s another top mark in her filmography comparable to her breakout in Martha Marcy May Marlene and hopefully, in-between bouts of this bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe nonsense, we’ll continue to see her in roles of some substance.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Thoughtful, provocative murder mystery
The back 1/2 of August has traditionally been a dumping ground for bad motion pictures. One exception to this was last year when the deserved Oscar nominated film HELL OR HIGH WATER was released (if you still haven't caught up with this, I highly recommend you do). So when I saw that the writer of HHW, Taylor Sheridan, was coming out with another modern sheriff murder mystery, I was intrigued to say the least.
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Survive or Surrender.
Of all of the movie released I missed during 2016 (typically due to work commitments) this one was one near the top of my list. I’m a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen, and the setting and story to this one really appealed.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2017
Brilliant performances (1 more)
Very well written and directed
A Satisfying Thriller
Taylor Sheridan has written two of my favourite movies over the last few years, Sicario and Hell or Highwater. This is only Sheridan's second time in the directors chair though and he proves that he is more than capable when put in charge of an entire film's production.
This is a fairly slow burn that focuses mostly on building character arcs and relationships rather than fast paced action. The structure that the movie follows to give the audience context and the backstory of the movie's respective characters though, is extremely effective and well crafted. The movie doesn't treat it's audience like idiots, nor does it act too smart for it's own good.
Renner and Olsen are both fantastic in the two lead roles and are able to make scenes that are purely dialogue focused, engaging and entertaining. I like Jeremy Renner, but when he stars in blockbuster movies like Bourne or Avengers or Mission Impossible, it is easy to forget how good of an actor he really is, in this performance, he does a good job of reminding you of his ability as a performer.
Slight spoilers follow, nothing major, but some might rather not know anything going in, so if that's you stop reading now. Jon Bernthal's cameo towards the end of the movie was such a delight, he is only in the movie for a just shy of ten minutes, but he was fantastic as he always is. That guy is quickly turning into one of my favourite character actors working in Hollywood.
I won't spoil the end of the movie, but I will say that it is extremely satisfying and makes the slow burn leading up to that point totally worth it.
If you are a fan of mystery thrillers and gripping dramatic performances, then go and see this film.
This is a fairly slow burn that focuses mostly on building character arcs and relationships rather than fast paced action. The structure that the movie follows to give the audience context and the backstory of the movie's respective characters though, is extremely effective and well crafted. The movie doesn't treat it's audience like idiots, nor does it act too smart for it's own good.
Renner and Olsen are both fantastic in the two lead roles and are able to make scenes that are purely dialogue focused, engaging and entertaining. I like Jeremy Renner, but when he stars in blockbuster movies like Bourne or Avengers or Mission Impossible, it is easy to forget how good of an actor he really is, in this performance, he does a good job of reminding you of his ability as a performer.
Slight spoilers follow, nothing major, but some might rather not know anything going in, so if that's you stop reading now. Jon Bernthal's cameo towards the end of the movie was such a delight, he is only in the movie for a just shy of ten minutes, but he was fantastic as he always is. That guy is quickly turning into one of my favourite character actors working in Hollywood.
I won't spoil the end of the movie, but I will say that it is extremely satisfying and makes the slow burn leading up to that point totally worth it.
If you are a fan of mystery thrillers and gripping dramatic performances, then go and see this film.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Great Direction (1 more)
Brilliant cast
Not your typical alien invasion flick.
Arrival is the most recent movie from one of my favourite directors working today, Denis Villeneuve. This guy’s track record has been incredible so far, with my personal favourite of his being 2013’s Prisoners. Since then I have been following this guy’s career and although in my opinion he hasn’t since replicated the masterpiece that was Prisoners, he has came very close several times with Enemy, with Sicario and now with Arrival as well. The cast are also solid here; Jeremy Renner does what he does best, plays a supporting role and shines in a backseat position. Whittaker is, as always great in the film and is engaging throughout the runtime. This is also probably Amy Adams best role, I don’t hate Adams as an actress, but I do feel that she is extremely overrated and is never anything more than functional in a role. Here though, she actually has a character arc and gives a decent performance. Rodger Deakins’ cinematography is missed though, Bradford Young does sell the tone of the movie consistently through his shots, but for me no one comes close to Deakins behing the camera. Overall my hype for this movie was met and it is a solid addition to Villeneuve’s filmography and doesn’t let down his consistently great track record.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The fourth chapter in the phenomenally popular Mission Impossible series has arrived in theaters and jump starts the franchise with a dynamic ensemble cast and a bold mix of action and adventure with a touch of comedy thrown in.
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opens with a daring escape from a Russian prison followed shortly thereafter by an infiltration of the Kremlin and subsequent explosion on the famed Russian landmark.
Tom Cruise returns as agent Ethan Hunt and is joined by Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and Paula Patton. Shortly after the explosion at the Kremlin, tensions between the United States and Russia are at an all-time high. As a result, the president initiates Ghost Protocol, which effectively shuts down the Impossible Mission Force and eliminates many of their resources. As a result, Ethan and his team must take on an unsanctioned mission that will take them from Russia to Dubai to Mumbai in a race against time to not only clear the IMF from being blamed for the bombing, but to stop a deranged criminal from using stolen Russian launch codes to unleash a nuclear strike upon America.
Ethan and his team bring all manner of weapons and technology to bear against the enemy and while the action sequences are intense and the best in the series to date, they don’t overshadow the human element of the film as each character has a back story which helped endear them to the audience. Unlike previous films in the series, the plot is not as convoluted and hard to follow and director Brad Bird, making his live-action directing debut, does a fantastic job of pacing the film, never once letting it drag or become boring.
Pegg and Renner are fantastic additions to the series as Renner brings a sense of humanity to his role as analyst Brandt. Pegg gets a share of comedic lines and moments but is not there simply to provide comic relief, convincingly deadly serious when the action becomes hot and heavy. Patton holds her own with the guys and proves she is more than just a pretty face as her fight scene in a high-rise with an assassin is as intense as any action fan could want with a fantastic finale.
Cruise goes all-out in his performance and performs many of the film’s stunts himself, quite a few of them shriek-inducing, judging by the reaction of the ladies in the audience. While Ethan spends a lot of time running in the film, he also spends a lot of time fighting and it was very nice to see him share some of the responsibility for the film’s action scenes with his ensemble cast. I believe that the ensemble works so well that the studio should keep this team together for future installments in the series. The team has a winning formula that reinvigorates the series giving us what I believe is the best film in the series to date.
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opens with a daring escape from a Russian prison followed shortly thereafter by an infiltration of the Kremlin and subsequent explosion on the famed Russian landmark.
Tom Cruise returns as agent Ethan Hunt and is joined by Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and Paula Patton. Shortly after the explosion at the Kremlin, tensions between the United States and Russia are at an all-time high. As a result, the president initiates Ghost Protocol, which effectively shuts down the Impossible Mission Force and eliminates many of their resources. As a result, Ethan and his team must take on an unsanctioned mission that will take them from Russia to Dubai to Mumbai in a race against time to not only clear the IMF from being blamed for the bombing, but to stop a deranged criminal from using stolen Russian launch codes to unleash a nuclear strike upon America.
Ethan and his team bring all manner of weapons and technology to bear against the enemy and while the action sequences are intense and the best in the series to date, they don’t overshadow the human element of the film as each character has a back story which helped endear them to the audience. Unlike previous films in the series, the plot is not as convoluted and hard to follow and director Brad Bird, making his live-action directing debut, does a fantastic job of pacing the film, never once letting it drag or become boring.
Pegg and Renner are fantastic additions to the series as Renner brings a sense of humanity to his role as analyst Brandt. Pegg gets a share of comedic lines and moments but is not there simply to provide comic relief, convincingly deadly serious when the action becomes hot and heavy. Patton holds her own with the guys and proves she is more than just a pretty face as her fight scene in a high-rise with an assassin is as intense as any action fan could want with a fantastic finale.
Cruise goes all-out in his performance and performs many of the film’s stunts himself, quite a few of them shriek-inducing, judging by the reaction of the ladies in the audience. While Ethan spends a lot of time running in the film, he also spends a lot of time fighting and it was very nice to see him share some of the responsibility for the film’s action scenes with his ensemble cast. I believe that the ensemble works so well that the studio should keep this team together for future installments in the series. The team has a winning formula that reinvigorates the series giving us what I believe is the best film in the series to date.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Tag (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
When you hear about a movie being based on a true story, especially this film, the first thing you ask yourself, “Wait a second, this actually happened in real life?” This movie is about 5 lifelong friends who have been playing the kids’ game Tag for 30 years. Every year during the month of May, it’s no holds barred attempt at tagging each other.
The movie starts out with Hoagie (Ed Helms) trying to procure a janitor job at his friend Callahan’s (Jon Hamm) company for the sole purpose of the game. This year, Hoagie is on a dire mission to tag Jerry (Jeremy Renner), who has never been tagged. After heading out to tag Chilli (Jake Johnson), and Sable (Hannibal Burress), the guys find out they were not invited to Jerry’s wedding mainly because he didn’t want to get tagged.
Jerry has spent decades calculating every move and hidden attempts and is hellbent on never being tagged. You can pretty much guess what ensues once the gang arrives to the wedding. There is an exorbitant amount of slapstick humor in this film, that it masks the absolute absurdity of adults playing tag. There isn’t very much substance to this movie’s storyline. It’s pretty much vulgar humor, physical antics, and everything you’ve wanted in a film about adults playing a kids game. If you’re looking to spend 2 hours laughing immensely at a movie that will most likely win a Razzie, go see this one.
You’ll think it’s unbelievably ridiculous, you can’t help but love it!
The movie starts out with Hoagie (Ed Helms) trying to procure a janitor job at his friend Callahan’s (Jon Hamm) company for the sole purpose of the game. This year, Hoagie is on a dire mission to tag Jerry (Jeremy Renner), who has never been tagged. After heading out to tag Chilli (Jake Johnson), and Sable (Hannibal Burress), the guys find out they were not invited to Jerry’s wedding mainly because he didn’t want to get tagged.
Jerry has spent decades calculating every move and hidden attempts and is hellbent on never being tagged. You can pretty much guess what ensues once the gang arrives to the wedding. There is an exorbitant amount of slapstick humor in this film, that it masks the absolute absurdity of adults playing tag. There isn’t very much substance to this movie’s storyline. It’s pretty much vulgar humor, physical antics, and everything you’ve wanted in a film about adults playing a kids game. If you’re looking to spend 2 hours laughing immensely at a movie that will most likely win a Razzie, go see this one.
You’ll think it’s unbelievably ridiculous, you can’t help but love it!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
2013 is the year of the fairy-tale and the year of the witch, or so it looks that way from what seems to be a never-ending bombardment of films related to the two age-old topics. This year sees the release of Bryan Singer’s Jack the Giant Slayer as well as Sam Raimi’s Oz: The Great & the Powerful and whilst the latter has opened to mixed reviews, it is Bryan Singer’s effort which really looks like it’ll sparkle.
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 28 Weeks Later starts by having a group of survivors in a boarded up farm house with tension rising a shock visit from a young boy leads to the infected attack the house and lone survivor Don (Carlyle) escaping leaving his wife behind. We are then lead into a flash-forward telling us how Britain is attempting to rebuild after the rage virus 28 Weeks Later. With Britain still being rebuilt Don’s children Tammy (Poots) and Andy (Muggleton) are the first children to return, even though the safety zone is still run by the military.
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: When you have a con artist film you need to be anticipating some twist in the heroes favour. This has that and you are left to figure out how he will pull it off, what happens between is very familiar with the differences between the hero and the guy he has to complete the job for. What is not familiar is that the hero starts to support the guys he is meant to be conning, mix in a love triangle and you do get something more original. The film never tries to take its self too serious which is what makes it good, but in the end you won’t be left thinking I have to watch this again. (7/10)
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/