Search
Search results
Louise (64 KP) rated The Unseeing in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I am a lover of Historical fiction especially Victorian London so when I read the synopsis of ‘The Unseeing’ I knew I had to read it. This is Anna Mazzola’s debut novel and I can tell you it certainly delivered.
The year is 1837 and Sarah Gale is sentenced to be hung, she is believed to have aid and abet James Greenacre in the death of Hannah Brown. Sarah Gale was having an on/off relationship with Greenacre and living with him in his home until he met Hannah. Hannah Brown was a spinster with a bit of money and business’s in her possession,until her body parts were found randomly around London.Greenacre a conniving man that he is only wanted Hannah for her money and threw Sarah out a few days before Christmas. A few days after Christmas Hannah Brown is gone and Sarah Gale is back in Greenacre’s bed. Sarah is adamant that she knows nothing about the disappearance or death of Hannah Brown, but no-one believes her.
Sarah Gale and a Women’s institute have requested Sarah to be pardoned as she is to be hung but is adamant she knows nothing. Edmund Fleetwood has been assigned the case, his job is to see if she will talk or if there is any new evidence. This is one of the most spoken about cases of the time and this could be the career break that Edmund needs, however Sarah Gale is still adamant that she knows nothing. Can this meek, pale women really be involved in a murder?
This book was amazing, I felt like I had been transported to London in 1837. The writing was so atmospheric, the descriptions of the sounds, the streets and the way the characters spoke just blew me away, and it was consistent throughout the book. The Unseeing is a slow burn book that drip feeds you information slowly and you start piecing it together like a jigsaw puzzle. I was definitely hooked and needed to know how Hannah had come to be in pieces around London and what was going to happen to Sarah. There is a twist and I didn’t see it coming whatsoever and was left shocked for some time.
This book is based on a true crime that happened in 1837 and is known as the Edgeware Murder. Sarah Gale and John Greenacre are the names of the actual people involved and the court scripts can be seen at the Old Bailey website. You can definitely tell that the Mazzola had knowledge of the justice system as it was very well researched. I loved that Mazzola managed to make a fictional book out of a true crime and it makes it even more intriguing to read. It does make you think of how the justice system failed a lot of people back in Victorian times.
I will definitely be reading anything else Anna Mazzola release and recommend this book you are interested true crime and historical fiction.
I rated this 4 out of 5 stars
The year is 1837 and Sarah Gale is sentenced to be hung, she is believed to have aid and abet James Greenacre in the death of Hannah Brown. Sarah Gale was having an on/off relationship with Greenacre and living with him in his home until he met Hannah. Hannah Brown was a spinster with a bit of money and business’s in her possession,until her body parts were found randomly around London.Greenacre a conniving man that he is only wanted Hannah for her money and threw Sarah out a few days before Christmas. A few days after Christmas Hannah Brown is gone and Sarah Gale is back in Greenacre’s bed. Sarah is adamant that she knows nothing about the disappearance or death of Hannah Brown, but no-one believes her.
Sarah Gale and a Women’s institute have requested Sarah to be pardoned as she is to be hung but is adamant she knows nothing. Edmund Fleetwood has been assigned the case, his job is to see if she will talk or if there is any new evidence. This is one of the most spoken about cases of the time and this could be the career break that Edmund needs, however Sarah Gale is still adamant that she knows nothing. Can this meek, pale women really be involved in a murder?
This book was amazing, I felt like I had been transported to London in 1837. The writing was so atmospheric, the descriptions of the sounds, the streets and the way the characters spoke just blew me away, and it was consistent throughout the book. The Unseeing is a slow burn book that drip feeds you information slowly and you start piecing it together like a jigsaw puzzle. I was definitely hooked and needed to know how Hannah had come to be in pieces around London and what was going to happen to Sarah. There is a twist and I didn’t see it coming whatsoever and was left shocked for some time.
This book is based on a true crime that happened in 1837 and is known as the Edgeware Murder. Sarah Gale and John Greenacre are the names of the actual people involved and the court scripts can be seen at the Old Bailey website. You can definitely tell that the Mazzola had knowledge of the justice system as it was very well researched. I loved that Mazzola managed to make a fictional book out of a true crime and it makes it even more intriguing to read. It does make you think of how the justice system failed a lot of people back in Victorian times.
I will definitely be reading anything else Anna Mazzola release and recommend this book you are interested true crime and historical fiction.
I rated this 4 out of 5 stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
Good (enough) conclusion to the Franchise
After a few attempts at resurrecting this franchise, James Cameron has (wisely) decided to bury the franchise with one last TERMINATOR film starring the original Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. TERMINATOR: DARK FATE is a direct sequel to T2: JUDGEMENT DAY (or so says Producer/Writer Cameron) as it ignores the 3rd and 4th movies in this series (as well as the television show THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES).
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 23, 2018
If you liked the first 4 films in this series, you'll like this one
Did you watch - and enjoy - the other 4 films in the JURASSIC PARK series? If so, then you'll enjoy the 5th installment, for it is more of the same - man's hubris causes giant animals to run amok and chaos, death and destruction ensues.
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Tony Stark, (Robert Downey Jr.), life has become very complicated for the self-proclaimed genius, philanthropist, billionaire, and playboy. In the new film “Iron Man 3”, Stark is wracked by insomnia and dread following the battle he waged to save New York in “The Avengers”.
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 2, 2021
Nolan's PhD Thesis on time
And…on the first day of 2021…the BankofMarquis viewed the best film of 2020.
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Breaking In (2018) (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Get In.
Into every life a little rain must fall. Some fairly pervasive advertising drove me into the cinema to see this one… often a sign that the distributors think it has legs. And from its quirky opening titles (with a COMPLETELY expected shock denouement!) I started to think it did have something. The beginning is in fact VERY similar to the introductory scene of “Get Out” in its randomness, and for one brief moment I wondered if the film was trying to parody that indie classic from last year… with only some studio lawyers getting in the way of them really calling it “Get In”. (“No, no, no… ‘Get’ is copyrighted… you’ll have to use some other word!”).
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Far, far away from it's potential...
Contains spoilers, click to show
After 22 years of waiting, since 1983′s "Return Of The Jedi", we were sat in the auditorium ready to witness the epic moment when Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker would finally turn on one and other and Darth Vader's conception would be complete.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.