Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2017
A good but sadly inferior sequel
This film suffers from what 95% of sequels all suffer from; they never live up to the originals. The problem with The Golden Circle is that it has a lot to live up to. The original Kingsman film came out of nowhere, with little expectations & it was truly marvellous. And sadly the sequel doesn't quite live up to this.
As sequels go, it's still pretty good. The action scenes were great, the plot was interesting and Julianne Moore makes for an interesting baddie. Even the addition of the Statesman was a smart move & added something different, and it's always good to see Colin Firth back
The problem however is that this film has a far more serious tone than the first. There's humour, just not as much. And the action scenes although good (especially those with Whiskey), none of them could live up to that epic church scene from the first film. Theres also the issue that a lot of the film had been shown in the various trailers, and finally, it could've done with a little more Channing Tatum and a little less Elton John.
As sequels go, it's still pretty good. The action scenes were great, the plot was interesting and Julianne Moore makes for an interesting baddie. Even the addition of the Statesman was a smart move & added something different, and it's always good to see Colin Firth back
The problem however is that this film has a far more serious tone than the first. There's humour, just not as much. And the action scenes although good (especially those with Whiskey), none of them could live up to that epic church scene from the first film. Theres also the issue that a lot of the film had been shown in the various trailers, and finally, it could've done with a little more Channing Tatum and a little less Elton John.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Suburbicon is a peaceful, idyllic, suburban community with affordable homes and manicured lawns -- the perfect place to raise a family, and in the summer of 1959, the Lodge family is doing just that. But the tranquil surface masks a disturbing reality, as husband and father Gardner Lodge must navigate the town's dark underbelly of betrayal, deceit and violence.
I saw this trailer so many times in the run up to the Unlimited Screening. It initially intrigued me, I'm not a particular fan of Matt Damon, but I do like Julianne Moore, and Oscar Isaac the more I see him. Both Moore and Isaac seemed at home in this 50s setting, but Damon didn't feel very convincing.
The story had a lot of potential. Lodge wants to kill his wife who has become bitter towards him since he caused an accident that left her in a wheelchair. The plan is to stage a home invasion that leads to her death. This will leave room for her twin sister to move in and take her sister's place in the family. But when a suspicious insurance investigator comes sniffing around the case things start to fall apart. In the background of this though there is a story about the new African-American neighbours that have moved into the property behind the Lodge's. I know that this is fitting for that era, and some sort of big "distraction" was needed for a lot of things to work, but it just felt very detached from everything.
This isn't one that I'd watch again, I feel like it's going to fade into obscurity in my mind and in about ten years someone is going to ask me if I've seen it and I won't be able to remember.
I saw this trailer so many times in the run up to the Unlimited Screening. It initially intrigued me, I'm not a particular fan of Matt Damon, but I do like Julianne Moore, and Oscar Isaac the more I see him. Both Moore and Isaac seemed at home in this 50s setting, but Damon didn't feel very convincing.
The story had a lot of potential. Lodge wants to kill his wife who has become bitter towards him since he caused an accident that left her in a wheelchair. The plan is to stage a home invasion that leads to her death. This will leave room for her twin sister to move in and take her sister's place in the family. But when a suspicious insurance investigator comes sniffing around the case things start to fall apart. In the background of this though there is a story about the new African-American neighbours that have moved into the property behind the Lodge's. I know that this is fitting for that era, and some sort of big "distraction" was needed for a lot of things to work, but it just felt very detached from everything.
This isn't one that I'd watch again, I feel like it's going to fade into obscurity in my mind and in about ten years someone is going to ask me if I've seen it and I won't be able to remember.
Kelly Reichardt recommended Safe (1995) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Footloose (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Public dancing is against the law in the small religious town of Bomont. But Boston-raised teenager, Ren McCormack and the Reverend’s daughter Ariel have other ideas in this remake of the 1984 classic.
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
Lenard (726 KP) rated Gloria Bell (2019) in Movies
Mar 27, 2019
Julianne Moore (1 more)
Supporting cast
Dance Your Cares Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
Dancing is an art form. It is freedom. It can be both joyful or sadness. Dance is a metaphor for the ups and downs, ins and outs of life. Gloria loves to dance and goes out dancing whenever she gets the chance. Her job in insurance is mundane and joyless. Her children are both grown. Her daughter is a yoga instructor in a relationship with a Swedish big wave surfer, the symbol of YOLOism. Her son is raising a son alone while his millenial wife discovers herself or finds inner peace or some granola truism. Her ex-husband is out of her life amd played by hangdog Brad Garrett. The nights out dancing are a way to live for her. One night she meets a hot-blooded recent divorcee who ignites a untapped passion in her. He reads Latin American poetry and owns an amusement park with automatic paintball guns. Something doesn't feel completely right with this man though. His thirtyish daughters constantly call him, abandoning her in key spots. The relationship drains her and she refuses to dance. Until she realizes the truth and then avenges herself with his gifted gun. Kind of ironic that he is cheating with her and he gets angry when she ignores him while with her immediate family. In the end, she dances at her friend's daughter's wedding and finds her own inner joy.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Feb 12, 2020
I loved this film! I was surprised how much more I loved it in comparison to the first time I watched it - maybe it's because I watched the first one so the story made more sense, the sacrifices made more sense, and they felt really big and real.
I think what makes these movies so great is the action sequences along with the comedy. I love the way they shoot the action sequences and the editing that is done with it, I think it's really cool and unlike anything I've seen before. I loved all the characters in this film, though Harry felt a little bit off, but maybe that's something they're going to explore in the third installment - not The King's Man which is a prequel. Again, I love Taron Egerton so much and I love even more that Elton John is in this film - considering their relationship, though this is pre-Rocketman.
I also loved the plot of this movie way more than the first one, though I'm not sure why. Overall, I just think these are fun movies. Once again, the cast is out of the waters - Channing Tatum, Halle Berry, Julianne Moore, etc. I love the balance that carried through from the last film to this one and I think that this will shape up to be a nice trio to watch again when you just need some fun and a good laugh.
I think what makes these movies so great is the action sequences along with the comedy. I love the way they shoot the action sequences and the editing that is done with it, I think it's really cool and unlike anything I've seen before. I loved all the characters in this film, though Harry felt a little bit off, but maybe that's something they're going to explore in the third installment - not The King's Man which is a prequel. Again, I love Taron Egerton so much and I love even more that Elton John is in this film - considering their relationship, though this is pre-Rocketman.
I also loved the plot of this movie way more than the first one, though I'm not sure why. Overall, I just think these are fun movies. Once again, the cast is out of the waters - Channing Tatum, Halle Berry, Julianne Moore, etc. I love the balance that carried through from the last film to this one and I think that this will shape up to be a nice trio to watch again when you just need some fun and a good laugh.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Seventh Son (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a two-year delay, Seventh Son has finally reached the big screen, and it will leave you conflicted.
Seventh Son is brought to us by director Sergey Bodrov. Originally set for a February 2013 release, the film had complicated distribution arrangements between Legendary and Warner Brothers, which kept causing delays.
Jeff Bridges plays one of the title characters: Master John Gregory. He is the last of an order of peacekeeper knights, which once used to be a thousand strong. All of these knights are seventh sons of seventh sons, and are self-tasked with keeping the evil creatures of the world at bay.
The movie starts off with a young Gregory completing a prison cell for an unknown woman. Years later, the prisoner, a draconic beast, breaks out and attacks a nearby town, specifically targeting the aged Knight and his apprentice (Kit Harington — Jon Snow from Game of Thrones). This recently released evil is Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), the queen of witches.
During the battle, Harington’s brief existence in this film is brought to an end, causing Gregory to seek out another apprentice. This search leads him to young Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes). After Ward goes through some sad goodbyes with his family, he and Gregory set out to take down the Witch Queen before the blood moon sets.
His training would normally take 10 years, but they only have a week.
Put simply, this movie was very fragmented. It isn’t a good movie, but it isn’t a bad one either. It has reasonable special effects and decent fight scenes.
There is plenty of star power: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harington, Djimon Hounsou (one of my favorites), and Jason Scott Lee.
Jeff Bridges missed the mark on his character. It’s one thing to be disgruntled and war-torn with a curious sense of humor, but it’s something quite different to be outright silly.
There were no explanations. How did the order come about? Why seventh sons of seventh sons? How did Gregory KNOW there was a seventh son at that house? How did the war start? Why is Gregory the last? Why wasn’t there more about Gregory’s relationship with Malkin? Why did the skeleton in the armor attack Tom? Why do the swords hum? Where did the stone come from? Why was it powerful? Why anything, really? The story has no depth, failing to explain the “why” of any of its lore. There were only statements of fact, which confuses viewers and prevents them from becoming emotionally anchored to the story.
I simply didn’t care about the characters. The film was disorganized and rushed. Perhaps it would have been better served as two films, or a longer film, or even a mini series.
Seventh Son had the potential to be so much more. A combination of poor writing and bad direction made the movie lackluster to me and all three of my companions.
The actors delivered many campy one-liners, and the chuckles they drew from the crowd were quite unintentional.
If you are a fan of high fantasy, it’s probably worth seeing, but wait for it to arrive on Netflix and use it as background entertainment
Seventh Son is brought to us by director Sergey Bodrov. Originally set for a February 2013 release, the film had complicated distribution arrangements between Legendary and Warner Brothers, which kept causing delays.
Jeff Bridges plays one of the title characters: Master John Gregory. He is the last of an order of peacekeeper knights, which once used to be a thousand strong. All of these knights are seventh sons of seventh sons, and are self-tasked with keeping the evil creatures of the world at bay.
The movie starts off with a young Gregory completing a prison cell for an unknown woman. Years later, the prisoner, a draconic beast, breaks out and attacks a nearby town, specifically targeting the aged Knight and his apprentice (Kit Harington — Jon Snow from Game of Thrones). This recently released evil is Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), the queen of witches.
During the battle, Harington’s brief existence in this film is brought to an end, causing Gregory to seek out another apprentice. This search leads him to young Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes). After Ward goes through some sad goodbyes with his family, he and Gregory set out to take down the Witch Queen before the blood moon sets.
His training would normally take 10 years, but they only have a week.
Put simply, this movie was very fragmented. It isn’t a good movie, but it isn’t a bad one either. It has reasonable special effects and decent fight scenes.
There is plenty of star power: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harington, Djimon Hounsou (one of my favorites), and Jason Scott Lee.
Jeff Bridges missed the mark on his character. It’s one thing to be disgruntled and war-torn with a curious sense of humor, but it’s something quite different to be outright silly.
There were no explanations. How did the order come about? Why seventh sons of seventh sons? How did Gregory KNOW there was a seventh son at that house? How did the war start? Why is Gregory the last? Why wasn’t there more about Gregory’s relationship with Malkin? Why did the skeleton in the armor attack Tom? Why do the swords hum? Where did the stone come from? Why was it powerful? Why anything, really? The story has no depth, failing to explain the “why” of any of its lore. There were only statements of fact, which confuses viewers and prevents them from becoming emotionally anchored to the story.
I simply didn’t care about the characters. The film was disorganized and rushed. Perhaps it would have been better served as two films, or a longer film, or even a mini series.
Seventh Son had the potential to be so much more. A combination of poor writing and bad direction made the movie lackluster to me and all three of my companions.
The actors delivered many campy one-liners, and the chuckles they drew from the crowd were quite unintentional.
If you are a fan of high fantasy, it’s probably worth seeing, but wait for it to arrive on Netflix and use it as background entertainment
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Welcome back, chaps
Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the surprise hits of 2014. Marketed poorly by an unassuming set of trailers, the end result was a film as big a surprise as Guardians of the Galaxy was.
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html