Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Hunt on the edge… again.
2015’s “MI: Rogue Nation” was one of my favourite films of that year, so of all the summer blockbusters this was the one I was most looking forward to. Was I delighted? It’s a slightly qualified “YES!”.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated New Girl in Books
May 3, 2018
Like a reality show you can't turn away from
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is one of the few times where I enjoyed the book however the characters were so unlikable I was amazed that I stuck through and finished the novel. It was well written enough that I was super curious as to what happened to Becca and whether she was really around or if she had a horrible outcome. The mystery element was well done to keep you guessing. The point of views changes between Becca and Callie’s. There’s a good easy flow between the two perspectives so it makes the reading easy to follow and quick.
That being said, the characters were just awful in a sense not that they were unreadable (almost) but they were just horrible awful people. Even our main character wasn’t that likable. However I digress. Let’s break them down:
Becca; Oh darling. You horrible awful attention seeking harpy. Not only do you have issues of your own but because you aren’t happy you feel the need to destroy others and to make sure you drag them down into the mud and follow you through your misery. I had no sympathies. Even when it was revealed what happened. Except for ...well you know.
Max: Another horrible creature and he’s pretty much meant for Becca anyway as they’re both rather terrible people. The “I like you but I don’t want to be together” spiel is ugh. On top of that after you say that you go and do the pursuing. You’re the emotional manipulative type just like Becca and it’s hard to figure out which one is worse. You emotionally play with the main character and give her the yo-yo treatment then get mad when she’s talking with your best friend..oh wait sorry let’s re-write that: “Best Friend”. Dude, you’re like a horrible Tinder date gone wrong.
Dana: You’re a psychotic twit and holy mother mary do you have issues. I get what happened and you stood there and was an observer but you lashing out and being Queen Horrible to Callie (main character) was inexcusable. This behavior can’t even be blamed on grief, you’re just pure malice. Your obsession with Becca is creepy it makes you look like the type of fangirl nobody ever wants.
Madison and Julia: You have no spines and you follow Becca like she’s a Goddess. Stop being sheep and your condescension towards Callie was uncalled for. You each deserve a swift kick for treating her like that.
Johnny: You broke the Bro-Code. You should be banned for life.
Callie: Where do I start with you? You started off as a great main character and a lot of sympathies to you because you started off on the wrong foot and in a precarious situation. However then you did this yo-yo game with Max saying “Yeah I like you but I never said I was going to be with you” sure, that was a savage burn on your part but you keep *whining* about how you like Max so much and he’s not returning the favor because of Becca but he keeps coming back to you like you’re the side piece and you don’t seem to mind that treatment. You try to stick up for yourself with Dana (which was admirable) but then you shrink back into your turtle shell and you just *walk* into these situations even though YOU KNOW it’s going to turn out with potentially bad consequences. You’re like the friend that complains about how horrible your significant other is treating you but you’re still with that person but you don’t listen to advice. You have got to be one of the most frustrating characters I have ever read so far.
Well now! That sums up my opinions of the characters. I say go for reading this one. It’s almost like you’re watching reality TV and it’s such a guilty pleasure but you can’t help but not look away. Maybe because the characters were just so hateful you had to keep on reading. You just wanted to know what was going to happen next.
That being said, the characters were just awful in a sense not that they were unreadable (almost) but they were just horrible awful people. Even our main character wasn’t that likable. However I digress. Let’s break them down:
Becca; Oh darling. You horrible awful attention seeking harpy. Not only do you have issues of your own but because you aren’t happy you feel the need to destroy others and to make sure you drag them down into the mud and follow you through your misery. I had no sympathies. Even when it was revealed what happened. Except for ...well you know.
Max: Another horrible creature and he’s pretty much meant for Becca anyway as they’re both rather terrible people. The “I like you but I don’t want to be together” spiel is ugh. On top of that after you say that you go and do the pursuing. You’re the emotional manipulative type just like Becca and it’s hard to figure out which one is worse. You emotionally play with the main character and give her the yo-yo treatment then get mad when she’s talking with your best friend..oh wait sorry let’s re-write that: “Best Friend”. Dude, you’re like a horrible Tinder date gone wrong.
Dana: You’re a psychotic twit and holy mother mary do you have issues. I get what happened and you stood there and was an observer but you lashing out and being Queen Horrible to Callie (main character) was inexcusable. This behavior can’t even be blamed on grief, you’re just pure malice. Your obsession with Becca is creepy it makes you look like the type of fangirl nobody ever wants.
Madison and Julia: You have no spines and you follow Becca like she’s a Goddess. Stop being sheep and your condescension towards Callie was uncalled for. You each deserve a swift kick for treating her like that.
Johnny: You broke the Bro-Code. You should be banned for life.
Callie: Where do I start with you? You started off as a great main character and a lot of sympathies to you because you started off on the wrong foot and in a precarious situation. However then you did this yo-yo game with Max saying “Yeah I like you but I never said I was going to be with you” sure, that was a savage burn on your part but you keep *whining* about how you like Max so much and he’s not returning the favor because of Becca but he keeps coming back to you like you’re the side piece and you don’t seem to mind that treatment. You try to stick up for yourself with Dana (which was admirable) but then you shrink back into your turtle shell and you just *walk* into these situations even though YOU KNOW it’s going to turn out with potentially bad consequences. You’re like the friend that complains about how horrible your significant other is treating you but you’re still with that person but you don’t listen to advice. You have got to be one of the most frustrating characters I have ever read so far.
Well now! That sums up my opinions of the characters. I say go for reading this one. It’s almost like you’re watching reality TV and it’s such a guilty pleasure but you can’t help but not look away. Maybe because the characters were just so hateful you had to keep on reading. You just wanted to know what was going to happen next.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
It's been many years since I last watched any wrestling, and I certainly haven't seen anything of the WWE Divas, or more specifically Paige - the wrestling name of the young British girl whose story is featured in Fighting With My Family. I first got into WWE wrestling, or WWF as it was known back then, sometime during 1986 - just in time for Wrestlemania 3 and the classic main event of Hulk Hogan Vs André the Giant in front of a crowd of over 93,000. It was like nothing I'd ever seen before, and I was hooked. Following that, I used to have to wake up my younger brothers at around midnight whenever there was a major wrestling event on TV, so that we would be able to watch it live from the US. And then eventually, in 1992, they brought Summerslam to Wembley Stadium, and we were able to finally attend an event a little bit closer to home.
Fighting With My Family begins with a young Paige, real name Saraya-Jade, enjoying the WWF wrestling on TV with brother Zak and trying out some of the moves and holds on each other, similar to how I managed to perfect the figure four leglock on my younger brother.... But, that's where the similarities end as Saraya-Jade and Zak are positively encouraged by their parents to beat the crap out of each other, whereas I would probably have been grounded for making my brother cry or something. Their parents, Patrick ‘Rowdy Ricky Knight’ and Julia ‘Sweet Saraya’ are former wrestlers themselves who now run World Association of Wrestling (WAW), where grown up Saraya-Jade (Florence Pugh) and Zak (Jack Lowden) now fight each other for money in regular evening shows. Each day they head out in their WAW van to pick up a bunch of local kids, who would otherwise be headed down a path of criminality, and head to the gym to train them in the ring. Elder brother Roy was also a wrestler, but is currently in prison. It's a simple, close-knit working class family - all looking out for each other, highly passionate about wrestling and each having (or had at one point) a dream to one day make it big in the WWE.
One day that dream has a chance of becoming reality when tryouts for the WWE come to The O2 in London and Zak and Raya are selected to come along. WWE Coach Hutch (Vince Vaughn) puts them through their paces but only Raya is selected to move onto the next stage in Florida. While she heads out to continue her dream, a rejected Zak resigns himself to the fact that he's only ever going to be a small time wrestler. Raya becomes Paige and sets about trying to prove herself as the ordinary Brit girl in among all the dancers, models and cheerleaders who are also with her at boot camp. She's resentful of the others, as they were 'only selected for their tits and ass' and are without any kind of wrestling background. She's lonely, angry and lacking the self confidence she needs to really make it happen. Meanwhile, Zak is struggling with missing out on heading to Florida - disinterested in his new born baby, undertaking grueling matches in front of small crowds, and picking fights in bars just for the hell of it.
Fighting With My Family boasts some real laugh out loud moments, but there is also a lot of relatable family drama and emotion. The cast are all incredible, particularly Florence Pugh as Raya/Paige. Vince Vaughn is a lot of fun as the coach and The Rock also brings a lot of comedy to the few scenes he's in. I absolutely loved everything about this movie and couldn't really fault it at all. Despite knowing beforehand the outcome for Paige, the whole movie just has you wondering throughout if she's going to make it or if she's going to quit, which makes the ending all the more enjoyable. And when you see clips during the credits of her real life family, you appreciate just how spot on some of the casting and acting is too!
Fighting With My Family begins with a young Paige, real name Saraya-Jade, enjoying the WWF wrestling on TV with brother Zak and trying out some of the moves and holds on each other, similar to how I managed to perfect the figure four leglock on my younger brother.... But, that's where the similarities end as Saraya-Jade and Zak are positively encouraged by their parents to beat the crap out of each other, whereas I would probably have been grounded for making my brother cry or something. Their parents, Patrick ‘Rowdy Ricky Knight’ and Julia ‘Sweet Saraya’ are former wrestlers themselves who now run World Association of Wrestling (WAW), where grown up Saraya-Jade (Florence Pugh) and Zak (Jack Lowden) now fight each other for money in regular evening shows. Each day they head out in their WAW van to pick up a bunch of local kids, who would otherwise be headed down a path of criminality, and head to the gym to train them in the ring. Elder brother Roy was also a wrestler, but is currently in prison. It's a simple, close-knit working class family - all looking out for each other, highly passionate about wrestling and each having (or had at one point) a dream to one day make it big in the WWE.
One day that dream has a chance of becoming reality when tryouts for the WWE come to The O2 in London and Zak and Raya are selected to come along. WWE Coach Hutch (Vince Vaughn) puts them through their paces but only Raya is selected to move onto the next stage in Florida. While she heads out to continue her dream, a rejected Zak resigns himself to the fact that he's only ever going to be a small time wrestler. Raya becomes Paige and sets about trying to prove herself as the ordinary Brit girl in among all the dancers, models and cheerleaders who are also with her at boot camp. She's resentful of the others, as they were 'only selected for their tits and ass' and are without any kind of wrestling background. She's lonely, angry and lacking the self confidence she needs to really make it happen. Meanwhile, Zak is struggling with missing out on heading to Florida - disinterested in his new born baby, undertaking grueling matches in front of small crowds, and picking fights in bars just for the hell of it.
Fighting With My Family boasts some real laugh out loud moments, but there is also a lot of relatable family drama and emotion. The cast are all incredible, particularly Florence Pugh as Raya/Paige. Vince Vaughn is a lot of fun as the coach and The Rock also brings a lot of comedy to the few scenes he's in. I absolutely loved everything about this movie and couldn't really fault it at all. Despite knowing beforehand the outcome for Paige, the whole movie just has you wondering throughout if she's going to make it or if she's going to quit, which makes the ending all the more enjoyable. And when you see clips during the credits of her real life family, you appreciate just how spot on some of the casting and acting is too!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated My Week with Marilyn (2011) in Movies
Dec 30, 2019
Strong performance by Williams in a terrific film
According to my Letterboxd profile, I view (on average) 4.5 films/week. Only 1 or 2 of them in a week are at the theater. The rest, I stream (or pop in the DVD). I spare you (for the most part) my review of mediocre or just plain bad films that I see (case in point the recent A CHRISTMAS CAROL on FX starring Guy Pearce - only watch it if you've ever wanted to see Marley drop the F-bomb multiple times). But...every once in a while I catch up with a gem that compels me to write a review to inform you folks of a wonderful film you might have missed (or have forgotten about).
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the 2011 film MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. the adaptation of Colin Clark's memoirs of working as an Assistant Director on the 1957 film THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL (which starred the unlikely pair of Sir Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe). As Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD) MWWM is a wonderful character study of a young man coming of age while watching the clash between the old school acting/working style of Olivier and "the method" of the new age of acting in the guise of Marilyn Monroe.
Eddie Redmayne (before he became the famous Oscar winning Actor for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING) is perfectly cast as the young Colin Clark. He has a naivete and longing to him that is ideal in this part. You watch him fall in love through the course of this film and you, the filmgoer, fall in love as well.
Bringing the strength and charisma to the screen as Olivier - as expected - is Kenneth Brannagh (MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS). He was often described as he was ascending in the British Theater world as "the next Olivier" and Brannagh captures his idol well. Giving light to the brilliance, arrogance and impatience of a celebrated actor, Brannagh was (rightfully) nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his work and he shone whenever he was on the screen.
Which brings me to Michelle Williams Oscar nominated work as Marilyn Monroe. All I can say is...wow. She took on the aura and personae of this icon and I felt as if I was watching a real, troubled person with great charisma on the screen. Williams embodies Monroe both in personality and in physicality (Monroe was a tremendously good physical comedic actress) showing there is much, much more to this actress than the beautiful package that meets the eye. How Williams lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in THE IRON LADY (a performance I really liked) is beyond me.
It is important that both Brannagh and Redmayne hold their own in this film (and they do) for this performance by Williams could have easily swallowed up all around her - it is that good and powerful a performance. But Director Curtis and Brannagh and Redmayne (as well as wonderful supporting work by such great actors as Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Julia Ormond, Derek Jacoby, Dougray Scott, Emma Watson, Zoe Wannamaker and Dominic Cooper) strongly balance her work to give us, the audience, a pretty balanced portrait of this troubled production and this troubled person.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - but the deliberateness of the pace serves the story well. Colin falls in love with Marilyn (and Marilyn lets him fall in love with her) and we need the time and the space for those emotions to sink in.
If you are looking for a film that is a bit of an antidote to the usual CGI-Fest, SuperHero, Space films that are filling the multiplex, you will be well rewarded with MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. A loving, gentle film with strong performances - a type of film that is in short supply these days.
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN can be currently streamed on NETFLIX. You can also purchase/rent it on Amazon, Vudu, iTunes and YouTube.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Silk Road (2021) in Movies
Mar 12, 2021
Squandered a promising story
Silk Road is a 2021 thriller from writer/director Tiller Russell focusing on the true story of Ross Ulbricht who created and operated the darknet marketplace of the same name, selling drugs and other illegal items across the globe. On paper, Silk Road sounds like it should be a fascinating, interesting story and even the trailer makes it appear exciting, but unfortunately it never quite manages to pull off what it promises.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
If you got the chance to look into your dead husband’s cold case, would you? Would you really want to know who killed him? Why? Detective Rogers does. Detective Rogers, a retired detective from Reno, had joined a group of cold case solving retired detectives. Finally after 22 years, she wants to know who killed her husband and why. As she and the gang of cold case solving detectives begin to unravel his life and his secrets, she finds herself more and more angry that she didn’t know that much about that man she had married and had a child with. As the story goes on, secrets and lies that he had hidden from her and others close to him begin to shape him into an unpleasant way that makes it hard to swallow for Detective Rogers. With all his secrets and lies, it becomes unreal when they realize it wasn’t his body with his wallet attached to it and who all was behind such a crime.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery by Dean Wesley Smith was a fabulous book. As you follow the retired detectives and try to piece together all the evidence and clues they obtain to solve this case, you can’t help but begin to wonder what the whole story behind the dead ex-husband is. Who was he really and what could cause him to find trouble that would get him killed. In this mystery you get to sink your teeth in such a mystery that you try to figure it out yourself as you read, hoping to beat the detectives to their own results. With the twists and realizations of uncovered secrets and lies, you can’t help to find yourself in the shoes of Detective Rogers as she learns about her dead husband’s life and all this secrets.
Wesley had written the book extremely well with only one minor issue that may go undetected to someone reading it without doing a double take. On page 134 instead of using Detective Julia Rogers name, Detective Lott’s daughter name was used. At first I almost missed it, but as I continued reading the page I realized Annie wasn’t on the phone of even with them at that particular point. This wasn’t a huge flaw, but one I kind of wished was caught before publishing as I had to read the page eight times before realizing it had to be a typo. I totally understand typos happen, but it was just a slight irritation. Wesley was able to write such beautiful if no graphic at time scenes, that it was easy to get lost in the story rather quickly. Adding humor and romance to underlying tones makes it hard not to admire how he could capture the essence some detectives have after many years in service. It was truly amazing to read. I found the mystery truly astounding and enjoyed getting to know the characters and seeing how different eyes can bring knew things to light as well as new questions to be asked.
I really enjoyed how Wesley was able to bring in the interesting things detectives working on cold cases would do or ask and how having links to help gather information and to get to different places can help a cold case make it easier to find clues and solve a case that has little to no information. I have always had an interest in cold cases and found that being walked through how the team of retired detectives solves this case brought so much excitement and interesting things that makes you wonder if you could solve cold cases yourself if you had the money and resources that these detectives have. As you try to figure it out with them you can’t help to make mental notes and develop your own theories and questions that you may wish to have answered or worked through. Wesley easily makes you feel like you could be a detective.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery is the first book in its series and definitely leaves you craving the next one. With all the aspects in view that makes a mystery good, as well as the depth of the characters, you will find yourself wanting to take notes alongside the detectives. This makes it harder to put the book down while you're craving a new cold case to solve. I absolutely loved this book. I rate it 3 stars out of 4 because of the minor error in the text. Other than that, I definitely recommend this book to anyone who is looking to sink their teeth in a murder mystery that had become a cold case and solved 22 years later.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery by Dean Wesley Smith was a fabulous book. As you follow the retired detectives and try to piece together all the evidence and clues they obtain to solve this case, you can’t help but begin to wonder what the whole story behind the dead ex-husband is. Who was he really and what could cause him to find trouble that would get him killed. In this mystery you get to sink your teeth in such a mystery that you try to figure it out yourself as you read, hoping to beat the detectives to their own results. With the twists and realizations of uncovered secrets and lies, you can’t help to find yourself in the shoes of Detective Rogers as she learns about her dead husband’s life and all this secrets.
Wesley had written the book extremely well with only one minor issue that may go undetected to someone reading it without doing a double take. On page 134 instead of using Detective Julia Rogers name, Detective Lott’s daughter name was used. At first I almost missed it, but as I continued reading the page I realized Annie wasn’t on the phone of even with them at that particular point. This wasn’t a huge flaw, but one I kind of wished was caught before publishing as I had to read the page eight times before realizing it had to be a typo. I totally understand typos happen, but it was just a slight irritation. Wesley was able to write such beautiful if no graphic at time scenes, that it was easy to get lost in the story rather quickly. Adding humor and romance to underlying tones makes it hard not to admire how he could capture the essence some detectives have after many years in service. It was truly amazing to read. I found the mystery truly astounding and enjoyed getting to know the characters and seeing how different eyes can bring knew things to light as well as new questions to be asked.
I really enjoyed how Wesley was able to bring in the interesting things detectives working on cold cases would do or ask and how having links to help gather information and to get to different places can help a cold case make it easier to find clues and solve a case that has little to no information. I have always had an interest in cold cases and found that being walked through how the team of retired detectives solves this case brought so much excitement and interesting things that makes you wonder if you could solve cold cases yourself if you had the money and resources that these detectives have. As you try to figure it out with them you can’t help to make mental notes and develop your own theories and questions that you may wish to have answered or worked through. Wesley easily makes you feel like you could be a detective.
Kill Game: A Cold Poker Gang Mystery is the first book in its series and definitely leaves you craving the next one. With all the aspects in view that makes a mystery good, as well as the depth of the characters, you will find yourself wanting to take notes alongside the detectives. This makes it harder to put the book down while you're craving a new cold case to solve. I absolutely loved this book. I rate it 3 stars out of 4 because of the minor error in the text. Other than that, I definitely recommend this book to anyone who is looking to sink their teeth in a murder mystery that had become a cold case and solved 22 years later.