Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated The Raven (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've never really been a massive fan of John Cusack, I find him a bit tenuous and someone who slightly over acts. The Raven gives him the chance to over act to his heart’s content, as he plays poet Edgar Allan Poe who is drawn into the world and mind of a serial killer.
The film is set in 18th century Maryland where the flamboyant Edgar Allan Poe is busy churning out poems and gruesome stories that he desperately tries to get published in the local paper, although frustratingly as he experiences no one really knows or cares who he is?
This leads to large quantities of booze and lots of shouting and aggression at anyone who stands in his way. When a series of killings alert the local police, Detective Fields (Luke Evans) is called in to investigate, and when it’s discovered that the killings are in some way a copy of Poe’s illustrious work the man himself is tasked with assisting.
Visually the film is very good and is in keeping with the traditions of the 18th century, dark and slightly gothic it certainly gives the sense of a disturbed horror film. The killer is masked for the majority until the reveal, but clues are dropped as to the identity giving the viewer the chance to play detective. Although you probably don’t need to be Inspector Morse to figure it out.
When Poe’s beloved fiancé Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve) is kidnapped and buried alive it adds a whole new twist to the plot. The killer is making this a personal vendetta against Poe who seems at a loss to who could be targeting him in such a horrific way, it then becomes a race against time as the killer leaves clues on his victims for Poe to follow that will lead him to a theatrical conclusion.
The film echos Se7en, in that both Fields and Poe are being taunted by a sadistic killer who is clearly making a bold statement with his work, that involve a huge swinging blade, being buried into a wall and having your tongue cut out. Also a young beautiful woman is at the killers mercy, can Poe race against time to save her?
Cusack does an admirable job in fairness to him and his portrayal of Poe is an accurate reincarnation. Brendan Gleeson who despite limited screen time still manages to command a presence that has to be respected, and here as Emily’s father he gives off a burning sense of desperation.
The rest of the cast amble a long and certainly don’t set any fires alight It’s an OK film and it does have the thrills but nothing that is going to set pulses racing. When you turn it off you just let out one big long “Meh!”
The film is set in 18th century Maryland where the flamboyant Edgar Allan Poe is busy churning out poems and gruesome stories that he desperately tries to get published in the local paper, although frustratingly as he experiences no one really knows or cares who he is?
This leads to large quantities of booze and lots of shouting and aggression at anyone who stands in his way. When a series of killings alert the local police, Detective Fields (Luke Evans) is called in to investigate, and when it’s discovered that the killings are in some way a copy of Poe’s illustrious work the man himself is tasked with assisting.
Visually the film is very good and is in keeping with the traditions of the 18th century, dark and slightly gothic it certainly gives the sense of a disturbed horror film. The killer is masked for the majority until the reveal, but clues are dropped as to the identity giving the viewer the chance to play detective. Although you probably don’t need to be Inspector Morse to figure it out.
When Poe’s beloved fiancé Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve) is kidnapped and buried alive it adds a whole new twist to the plot. The killer is making this a personal vendetta against Poe who seems at a loss to who could be targeting him in such a horrific way, it then becomes a race against time as the killer leaves clues on his victims for Poe to follow that will lead him to a theatrical conclusion.
The film echos Se7en, in that both Fields and Poe are being taunted by a sadistic killer who is clearly making a bold statement with his work, that involve a huge swinging blade, being buried into a wall and having your tongue cut out. Also a young beautiful woman is at the killers mercy, can Poe race against time to save her?
Cusack does an admirable job in fairness to him and his portrayal of Poe is an accurate reincarnation. Brendan Gleeson who despite limited screen time still manages to command a presence that has to be respected, and here as Emily’s father he gives off a burning sense of desperation.
The rest of the cast amble a long and certainly don’t set any fires alight It’s an OK film and it does have the thrills but nothing that is going to set pulses racing. When you turn it off you just let out one big long “Meh!”
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: With the story of a sceptic investigating paranormal events but then ends up stuck in these paranormal events he so very much doesn’t believe in, is a very clichéd story. This has most of this and adds in that he is a writer with a dark past involving loss you know where this is going. Mixing it all together we get the idea of redemption for the mistakes we may have done in life. One weak point of this film is that there are two endings that paint a very different picture of the events that happen in the film, I personally prefer the Director’s Cut as I find it has more answer than the Theatrical Cut. (8/10)
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Moon (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Sam Bell is at the end of his rope. He's an astronaut that took a job on the moon whose contract lasted three long years. The job requires him to send storage containers of Helium-3 back to Earth, which would essentially help with the planet's power situation. Other than his computer assistant, GERTY, Sam is alone. He's started talking to himself and basically feels like he's losing his mind since he's been on the moon for so long in this lonely state. The only thing that's really keeping him straight is the fact that he's supposed to go home in two weeks. Sam just wants to get home and see his wife and daughter, who's already growing up without him in her life. As Sam ventures outside for some everyday maintenance, he discovers something disturbing. An accident occurred while somebody was behind the wheel of one of the lunar vehicles and the unconscious man Sam pulls out of the vehicle looks exactly like him. Sam is then given the unfortunate task of trying to figure out if he's lost his marbles or if some conspiracy scheme has been transpiring right under his nose this entire time.
Moon has been one of my most anticipated films of the year ever since I saw the trailer a few months ago. Everything about the trailer pulled me in. Sam Rockwell looked to put in an incredible performance, the score sounded incredibly solid and fit the film like a glove, and it just looked like a really amazing sci-fi film. Have you ever walked away from a film completely satisfied? That feeling you have when you see a film that just sticks with you as its most memorable moments play through your head and you smile a little as you walk to your car? That's the feeling that pulsed through me after seeing Moon. A feeling that I've only felt a handful of times (The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Up, and Moon come to mind).
Sam Rockwell is really in top form here. I've always wanted to like him, but had always seen him in films where it felt like he was holding back and not showing his full potential. Moon definitely corrected that as Rockwell is really able to portray his acting range and how wonderful he really is. When I saw 1408, the first thing that crossed my mind after it ended was that John Cusack really carried that film. It was just him alone in a hotel room the majority of the film and he was able to make that worth watching. What John Cusack is to 1408, Sam Rockwell is to Moon as it's just Sam reacting to himself during the film's duration.
It's not often that I get to say a film met my expectations or satisfied me in every way, but Moon did just that. This is Sam Rockwell at his best. The film pulls you in as soon as the opening scene hits with Sam running on a treadmill and that familiar music from the trailer kicks in. My craving for an incredible and original sci-fi film for quite some time was met with this and it delivered in every aspect. It's definitely in the running for my favorite film of 2009.
Moon has been one of my most anticipated films of the year ever since I saw the trailer a few months ago. Everything about the trailer pulled me in. Sam Rockwell looked to put in an incredible performance, the score sounded incredibly solid and fit the film like a glove, and it just looked like a really amazing sci-fi film. Have you ever walked away from a film completely satisfied? That feeling you have when you see a film that just sticks with you as its most memorable moments play through your head and you smile a little as you walk to your car? That's the feeling that pulsed through me after seeing Moon. A feeling that I've only felt a handful of times (The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Up, and Moon come to mind).
Sam Rockwell is really in top form here. I've always wanted to like him, but had always seen him in films where it felt like he was holding back and not showing his full potential. Moon definitely corrected that as Rockwell is really able to portray his acting range and how wonderful he really is. When I saw 1408, the first thing that crossed my mind after it ended was that John Cusack really carried that film. It was just him alone in a hotel room the majority of the film and he was able to make that worth watching. What John Cusack is to 1408, Sam Rockwell is to Moon as it's just Sam reacting to himself during the film's duration.
It's not often that I get to say a film met my expectations or satisfied me in every way, but Moon did just that. This is Sam Rockwell at his best. The film pulls you in as soon as the opening scene hits with Sam running on a treadmill and that familiar music from the trailer kicks in. My craving for an incredible and original sci-fi film for quite some time was met with this and it delivered in every aspect. It's definitely in the running for my favorite film of 2009.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Bag Man (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Sometimes it sucks to be a delivery guy when you don’t know what you are
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Sep 12, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
In brief - movie about the world ending makes you wish that the world was ending
Let's be honest - many, if not all natural disaster films are viewed purely for the spectacle. No one is settling down to watch one of these things with the intention of watching some layered character arc, or listen to a fantastic script - 2012 is no different.
The above mentioned spectacle is very formulaic here, as crazy set piece is followed by crazy set piece, complimented with in between scenes of a just-doing-it-for-the-pay-check John Cusack, and his exceptionally boring family (who all somehow manage to be in the exact place of disasters kicking off multiple times).
The scenes of mayhem themselves are laced with Benny Hill-esque antics, and silly dialogue that instantly removes any tension.
As our band of irritatingly mundane survivors trudge through our planet literally cracking apart, they come across a host of 'wacky' characters, who all seem to be jostling for the part of comic relief (not every character needs to be comic relief Roland). And I really wanted pretty much everyone of these characters to just hurry up and get killed by a tornado or whatever.
I did however quite enjoy Woody Harrelson's batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and his gratuitous pickle eating.
It's also always nice to see the likes of Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor, even if they're not given much to do here but look all serious.
The CGI is just about starting to age at this point but is still mostly passable, and they're are some pretty memorable visuals here and there.
Overall though 2012 is pretty awful and really not as fun as it thinks it is.
The above mentioned spectacle is very formulaic here, as crazy set piece is followed by crazy set piece, complimented with in between scenes of a just-doing-it-for-the-pay-check John Cusack, and his exceptionally boring family (who all somehow manage to be in the exact place of disasters kicking off multiple times).
The scenes of mayhem themselves are laced with Benny Hill-esque antics, and silly dialogue that instantly removes any tension.
As our band of irritatingly mundane survivors trudge through our planet literally cracking apart, they come across a host of 'wacky' characters, who all seem to be jostling for the part of comic relief (not every character needs to be comic relief Roland). And I really wanted pretty much everyone of these characters to just hurry up and get killed by a tornado or whatever.
I did however quite enjoy Woody Harrelson's batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and his gratuitous pickle eating.
It's also always nice to see the likes of Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor, even if they're not given much to do here but look all serious.
The CGI is just about starting to age at this point but is still mostly passable, and they're are some pretty memorable visuals here and there.
Overall though 2012 is pretty awful and really not as fun as it thinks it is.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Hot Tub Time Machine (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Adam (John Cusack) is a man going nowhere fast. Upon his return home one day, Adam finds his girlfriend gone, his nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) in his basement addicted to playing online games that simulate real life, and his friend Lou (Rob Corddry) in the hospital.
When Adam meets up with his friend Nick (Craig Robinson) at the hospital, Nick attempts to brighten up Lou by offering him a trip to their old ski resort to relive the fun of their youth. With Jacob tagging along, the three friends head back to the site of their past glory, and realize that things have not improved with time.
The scenic town is now run down and largely abandoned and their resort has long since seen better days. Undaunted, the group breaks out the alcohol and heads for the hot tub in an effort to make the most out of their time with one another and to escape their empty lives.
Upon awakening from their stupor the group discovers that they have been whisked back to 1986 and they appear to everyone there as the younger versions of themselves. Jacob flips though when he sees himself as a flickering image and becomes convinced that they must not do anything to alter the future and must relive the weekend of 1986 over exactly as they did the first time.
A quirky repair man (Chevy Chase), indicates that he can fix the tub, but that he will need some time. Adam is thrilled when he meets his old girlfriend and then laments the fact that he has to end their relationship in order to preserve the timeline. Adam has long regretted her leaving the love of his life and is tempted to do things differently this time.
Nick looks to relieve his failed musical debut as a singer, but knows that he must do what is needed to get home. Lou, on the other hand, is the loose cannon of the group and is thrilled to get another chance at glory and chase women since he has become a pathetic loser in the future.
What follows is a madcap and outrageous comedy that lovingly resurrects the classic 80’s movies of old and infuses the modern gross out humor to successfully blend the old with the new as the friends struggle to get through the weekend and return home without altering the future.
The cast is solid, and Crispin Glover is great as the bizarre bellhop destined to have his arm go missing, but the when and how drives Lou insane in anticipation. While Robinson and Cusack do solid work, Corddry steals the film as a scheming, madcap mix of depravity and patheticness that drives the film.
While the movie did drag in a few parts for me there were enough laughs in the film to keep me interested and enjoy the nostalgic look back at my beloved 80s.
When Adam meets up with his friend Nick (Craig Robinson) at the hospital, Nick attempts to brighten up Lou by offering him a trip to their old ski resort to relive the fun of their youth. With Jacob tagging along, the three friends head back to the site of their past glory, and realize that things have not improved with time.
The scenic town is now run down and largely abandoned and their resort has long since seen better days. Undaunted, the group breaks out the alcohol and heads for the hot tub in an effort to make the most out of their time with one another and to escape their empty lives.
Upon awakening from their stupor the group discovers that they have been whisked back to 1986 and they appear to everyone there as the younger versions of themselves. Jacob flips though when he sees himself as a flickering image and becomes convinced that they must not do anything to alter the future and must relive the weekend of 1986 over exactly as they did the first time.
A quirky repair man (Chevy Chase), indicates that he can fix the tub, but that he will need some time. Adam is thrilled when he meets his old girlfriend and then laments the fact that he has to end their relationship in order to preserve the timeline. Adam has long regretted her leaving the love of his life and is tempted to do things differently this time.
Nick looks to relieve his failed musical debut as a singer, but knows that he must do what is needed to get home. Lou, on the other hand, is the loose cannon of the group and is thrilled to get another chance at glory and chase women since he has become a pathetic loser in the future.
What follows is a madcap and outrageous comedy that lovingly resurrects the classic 80’s movies of old and infuses the modern gross out humor to successfully blend the old with the new as the friends struggle to get through the weekend and return home without altering the future.
The cast is solid, and Crispin Glover is great as the bizarre bellhop destined to have his arm go missing, but the when and how drives Lou insane in anticipation. While Robinson and Cusack do solid work, Corddry steals the film as a scheming, madcap mix of depravity and patheticness that drives the film.
While the movie did drag in a few parts for me there were enough laughs in the film to keep me interested and enjoy the nostalgic look back at my beloved 80s.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Raven (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In this dark thriller, Edgar Allan Poe (John Cusack) is forced to assist a young detective to track down a mad serial killer when it becomes obvious that the inspiration for the murders are Poe’s own literary works.
This fictionalized account of the last days of Edgar Allan Poe’s life begins with the brutal murder of a mother and daughter. Inspector Emmett Fields (Luke Evans) finds something oddly familiar about the crime scene and his research leads him to a story written by Poe. A struggling writer on his way to becoming the local drunkard, Poe is brought in for questioning just as another murder is discovered, again one that mirrors one of the author’s grisly stories.
Because it’s his stories that the murderer’s recreating, Poe becomes Field’s reluctant assistant in hunting down the serial killer. But when it appears Poe’s fiancee (Alice Eve) may become the murderer’s next victim, the stakes become even greater, and now it’s the murderer who’s inspiring the writer and inventor of the detective story genre to do some of his best sleuthing work.
While the cat-and-mouse element of the movie kept me in suspense, the movie itself was void of the dark drama one would expect of a movie about Edgar Allen Poe, even a fictionalized account. Even with the detailed attention to the look of 19th century Baltimore, it wasn’t enough to help Cusack’s lightweight portrayal of Poe. Many times I wondered if Evans would have been better cast as the grim, moody writer.
What I actually appreciated most about the movie was the lyrical dialogue, the clever, poetic word usage of yesteryear. Although, there were some minor slips that made me wonder if the scriptwriter or actor forgot which century they were in. I did not have high expectations for this movie, so it truly did not disappoint. With a 111 minute runtime, “The Raven” has just enough mystery to keep one guessing, however it felt a bit rushed at the end. Up against more lively competition this weekend, this may be one to save for a DVD rental.
This fictionalized account of the last days of Edgar Allan Poe’s life begins with the brutal murder of a mother and daughter. Inspector Emmett Fields (Luke Evans) finds something oddly familiar about the crime scene and his research leads him to a story written by Poe. A struggling writer on his way to becoming the local drunkard, Poe is brought in for questioning just as another murder is discovered, again one that mirrors one of the author’s grisly stories.
Because it’s his stories that the murderer’s recreating, Poe becomes Field’s reluctant assistant in hunting down the serial killer. But when it appears Poe’s fiancee (Alice Eve) may become the murderer’s next victim, the stakes become even greater, and now it’s the murderer who’s inspiring the writer and inventor of the detective story genre to do some of his best sleuthing work.
While the cat-and-mouse element of the movie kept me in suspense, the movie itself was void of the dark drama one would expect of a movie about Edgar Allen Poe, even a fictionalized account. Even with the detailed attention to the look of 19th century Baltimore, it wasn’t enough to help Cusack’s lightweight portrayal of Poe. Many times I wondered if Evans would have been better cast as the grim, moody writer.
What I actually appreciated most about the movie was the lyrical dialogue, the clever, poetic word usage of yesteryear. Although, there were some minor slips that made me wonder if the scriptwriter or actor forgot which century they were in. I did not have high expectations for this movie, so it truly did not disappoint. With a 111 minute runtime, “The Raven” has just enough mystery to keep one guessing, however it felt a bit rushed at the end. Up against more lively competition this weekend, this may be one to save for a DVD rental.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Never Grow Old (2019) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Under-the-Radar Good
Set in the 1800’s, when a band of unsavory men muscle their way into a small town, the town’s undertaker has to face the moral decision of reaping the benefits of their destruction or keeping his family and the town safe. It’s a lot harder of a decision than you might think which is part of the reason why I think this movie works so well. I thought I could easily decide one way or another, but by the end of it, I wasn’t so sure.
Acting: 10
I applaud Emile Hirsch for constantly taking on unique roles and stepping outside of comfort zones. In Never Grow Old, he is Pat the Irish undertaker. The role is original in and of itself, but he manages to take it and really make it his own. As Pat, he gives you that “Every Man” feel giving the sense that you would do the same types of things if put in his situation. You can feel his fear in knowing he may have to do some things he doesn’t want to do to protect his family.
Shout-out to John Cusack playing bounty hunter Dutch. He does an outstanding job of really making you hate his guts. By the end of it, you’re ready to seem him get taken out. I respected his performance because it never felt overdone or unbelievable like some actors struggle with when taking on an antagonist role. Think Thanos with a six-shooter.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 9
This film ranks up there in terms of Westerns if nothing else but for its originality. The genre is oversaturated with revenge tales, robberies, and the peacekeeping law. This takes you in an entirely different direction. It’s filled with action, grit, but, more importantly, thought.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Not the ending I was hoping for, but I understand why this directional path was chosen. it was almost unavoidable. I didn’t love it, but I definitely respect it.
Overall: 86
Never Grow Old is one of those hidden gem movies you will be wanting to tell your friends to go see. If you like Westerns, hell even if you don’t, this one is extremely enjoyable and memorable. One of my favorite under-the-radar movies.
Acting: 10
I applaud Emile Hirsch for constantly taking on unique roles and stepping outside of comfort zones. In Never Grow Old, he is Pat the Irish undertaker. The role is original in and of itself, but he manages to take it and really make it his own. As Pat, he gives you that “Every Man” feel giving the sense that you would do the same types of things if put in his situation. You can feel his fear in knowing he may have to do some things he doesn’t want to do to protect his family.
Shout-out to John Cusack playing bounty hunter Dutch. He does an outstanding job of really making you hate his guts. By the end of it, you’re ready to seem him get taken out. I respected his performance because it never felt overdone or unbelievable like some actors struggle with when taking on an antagonist role. Think Thanos with a six-shooter.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 9
This film ranks up there in terms of Westerns if nothing else but for its originality. The genre is oversaturated with revenge tales, robberies, and the peacekeeping law. This takes you in an entirely different direction. It’s filled with action, grit, but, more importantly, thought.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Not the ending I was hoping for, but I understand why this directional path was chosen. it was almost unavoidable. I didn’t love it, but I definitely respect it.
Overall: 86
Never Grow Old is one of those hidden gem movies you will be wanting to tell your friends to go see. If you like Westerns, hell even if you don’t, this one is extremely enjoyable and memorable. One of my favorite under-the-radar movies.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Roland Emmerich has done it again. He seems to get a kick out of bringing out humanities worst fears and putting them on screen in all its glory. After destroying a large part of the world in Independence Day: ID4, and trashing New York with Godzilla, he decides to go the rest of the way and change the face of the earth forever and in the process kill off most of humanity. What is the enemy this time? Aliens? Nope done that. Monsters? Nope also done that. Bad weather? Once again done that. What is left? I know lets have the sun spit out solar flares that heat up the earth's core and destabilize the planet! Whatever his problem with humanity is, it translates well on to film. This is an epic disaster movie. No part of the world is safe and there is no magic quick fix here.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
