Search
Search results
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Rainmaker (1997) in Movies
Apr 21, 2020
As a CJUS major and a future lawyer, this movie made me nerd out. Obviously, Matt Damon is a hottie and the film is worth watching for him alone, but Danny DeVito and Jon Voight too? This cast is phenomenal. The story was so good too! Johnny Whitworth's performance, though short, was super incredible, heartbreaking, and solid. He roped you in so well and just made you feel for him - even though it wasn't that hard.
I could watch this a million times over and even though there were definitely mistakes (the legal ones), it was worth overlooking and still an enjoyable film, no doubt.
I could watch this a million times over and even though there were definitely mistakes (the legal ones), it was worth overlooking and still an enjoyable film, no doubt.
Suswatibasu (1702 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Aug 22, 2017
Great acting (1 more)
Wonderful special effects
An adult version of Harry Potter
I have a soft spot for the Harry Potter series, a guilty pleasure. So I was hugely elated when this film came out. And more than anything, it felt like a grown-up version of the HP series, which is perfect timing for all the now adults who grew up with these films. It's beautiful in terms of CGI and graphics, especially the world of the fantastic beasts, and the abuse is much more graphic. The acting is by far on another level with Eddie Redmayne, Jon Voight, and Colin Farrell and the story is engaging. Looking forward to the next instalment!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
It came as a complete shock to me that I LOVED this movie! Granted, I would consider myself to be a Michael Bay fan, but certainly not a Transformers fan. Yes, I played with toys as a kid and the concept is good, but I never really bought into the TV shoes etc… But there’s very little wrong with this film.
Great script, dialogue, action, music and pacing. I now some may scoff at my great dialogue line, but the core to this films’ success is the fact that it knows exactly what it is. It’s an action blockbuster about living alien robots that transform in to various vehicles … How seriously can you take this concept??? But it manages to take it seriously enough to draw in the audience and keep our attention for almost 2 and half hours.
My only two quibbles with this movie are Jon Voight, always a problem in my opinion, and that Australian chick and the fat black guy. The most irritating comic relief ever…? Possibly…
Great script, dialogue, action, music and pacing. I now some may scoff at my great dialogue line, but the core to this films’ success is the fact that it knows exactly what it is. It’s an action blockbuster about living alien robots that transform in to various vehicles … How seriously can you take this concept??? But it manages to take it seriously enough to draw in the audience and keep our attention for almost 2 and half hours.
My only two quibbles with this movie are Jon Voight, always a problem in my opinion, and that Australian chick and the fat black guy. The most irritating comic relief ever…? Possibly…
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Mission: Impossible (1996) in Movies
Apr 7, 2020
Exploding Bubble Gum: The Start
Mission: Impossible- you cant have the month of "Tom Cruise" without this film franchise. This one started it all, the one with exploding bumble gun, the one with the close call, the one with a different face mask. The one that intudces Ethan Hunt and Luther Stickell. Such a excellent film, and franchise as a whole. Personally my favorite is the 3rd one, but i get to that eventually. For now lets start at the beginning.
The Plot: When U.S. government operative Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his mentor, Jim Phelps (Jon Voight), go on a covert assignment that takes a disastrous turn, Jim is killed, and Ethan becomes the prime murder suspect. Now a fugitive, Hunt recruits brilliant hacker Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and maverick pilot Franz Krieger (Jean Reno) to help him sneak into a heavily guarded CIA building to retrieve a confidential computer file that will prove his innocence.
Like i said before a excellent film, a excellent start for a excellent franchise.
The Plot: When U.S. government operative Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his mentor, Jim Phelps (Jon Voight), go on a covert assignment that takes a disastrous turn, Jim is killed, and Ethan becomes the prime murder suspect. Now a fugitive, Hunt recruits brilliant hacker Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and maverick pilot Franz Krieger (Jean Reno) to help him sneak into a heavily guarded CIA building to retrieve a confidential computer file that will prove his innocence.
Like i said before a excellent film, a excellent start for a excellent franchise.
Taika Waititi recommended Coming Home (1978) in Movies (curated)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ali (2001) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Needed more...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I used to have this in my collection but passed it on few years ago. It's not a bad film by any means but to put it simply, it is preaching to the converted, the fans of Mohammed Ali, and those who are old enough to remember him at his prime. I am neither.
This was a biopic that simply didn't offer enough information for the indoctrinated to take in, instead focusing, and very well, on the atmosphere and nuance of the day. The key events of his career are played out as the political unrest of the 60′s, and the race movement unfold.
But in the end, this is an actors film, and for that I might call it flawless. Will Smith as the titular Ali, is pitch perfect, as he proves once and for all that his can be a great actor, and the transformation of Jon Voight into Howard Cosell, is suburb. Mann is a top flight director in my book, able to convey nuanced situations and craft his films in a style unto his own, but sometimes, I feel a little short-changed, as I do here.
I wanted to learn about a man and a fighter from an era that I wasn't born into and was only given so much. But on the other hand, for those who were there, who do know him, the response has been very favourable.
A good film for those who know and half a film for those who are not so lucky.
This was a biopic that simply didn't offer enough information for the indoctrinated to take in, instead focusing, and very well, on the atmosphere and nuance of the day. The key events of his career are played out as the political unrest of the 60′s, and the race movement unfold.
But in the end, this is an actors film, and for that I might call it flawless. Will Smith as the titular Ali, is pitch perfect, as he proves once and for all that his can be a great actor, and the transformation of Jon Voight into Howard Cosell, is suburb. Mann is a top flight director in my book, able to convey nuanced situations and craft his films in a style unto his own, but sometimes, I feel a little short-changed, as I do here.
I wanted to learn about a man and a fighter from an era that I wasn't born into and was only given so much. But on the other hand, for those who were there, who do know him, the response has been very favourable.
A good film for those who know and half a film for those who are not so lucky.
Faris Badwan recommended track Everybody's Talkin by Harry Nilsson in All-Time Greatest Hits by Harry Nilsson in Music (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Potter goes International
It’s almost unbearable to think that Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone was released…wait for it… 15 years ago this very week. I know, I can’t believe it too, and what’s even more depressing is that the eight film behemoth concluded over five years ago.
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/