Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Silver Linings Playbook (2012) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019
Classic
A man trying to piece his life together after being released from a mental institution befriends a woman just as whacky and out of control as he is.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Silver Linings Playbook is a unique story about finding The One while finding your way. It’s a wild ride of storytelling where you hope it plays out in a certain fashion, but you’re never really sure. It’s hilarious, thought-provoking, and touching all at once. A definite classic.
Memorability: 10
One of my favorite scenes in this whole movie occurs when Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) confronts Pat (Bradley Cooper) after he missed their scheduled dance practice. It’s a brilliant scene where Tiffany and Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) go back and forth about why missing practice was the worst thing Pat Jr. could have done. There are quite a few moments like these where the dialogue is just right and the scene unfolds perfectly. These moments not only captivate your attention but have you anticipating the next great moment.
Pace: 10
And it’s because of those moments that the overall pace is managed so well. Outside of a slow beginning, the story moves at an extremely consistent pace. Sometimes funny, sometimes touching, and sometimes both, it forces you through the story while you ride an emotional high.
Plot: 10
The originality of the story gives me nothing to compare it to and that’s a great thing. It’s a film that succeeds by staying in its own lane and not trying to be anything else. It also succeeds with consistency: There are no holes or weaknesses that make the overall story come up short.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 91
Memorable scenes abound in Silver Linings Playbook. Anytime Chris Tucker shows up randomly, you know it’s going to be a good time. It’s not just a good movie, but a movie with staying power. The more I watch it, the more I end up loving it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Silver Linings Playbook is a unique story about finding The One while finding your way. It’s a wild ride of storytelling where you hope it plays out in a certain fashion, but you’re never really sure. It’s hilarious, thought-provoking, and touching all at once. A definite classic.
Memorability: 10
One of my favorite scenes in this whole movie occurs when Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) confronts Pat (Bradley Cooper) after he missed their scheduled dance practice. It’s a brilliant scene where Tiffany and Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) go back and forth about why missing practice was the worst thing Pat Jr. could have done. There are quite a few moments like these where the dialogue is just right and the scene unfolds perfectly. These moments not only captivate your attention but have you anticipating the next great moment.
Pace: 10
And it’s because of those moments that the overall pace is managed so well. Outside of a slow beginning, the story moves at an extremely consistent pace. Sometimes funny, sometimes touching, and sometimes both, it forces you through the story while you ride an emotional high.
Plot: 10
The originality of the story gives me nothing to compare it to and that’s a great thing. It’s a film that succeeds by staying in its own lane and not trying to be anything else. It also succeeds with consistency: There are no holes or weaknesses that make the overall story come up short.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 91
Memorable scenes abound in Silver Linings Playbook. Anytime Chris Tucker shows up randomly, you know it’s going to be a good time. It’s not just a good movie, but a movie with staying power. The more I watch it, the more I end up loving it.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 28, 2019
Back on form
Fox made a smart move with First Class. After just four movies, the X-Men movie franchise had already started to feel a bit stale. The solution? Take the story way back for a 60s adventure.
The casting here is pretty strong. James McAvoy is great in the role of a younger and cockier Charles Xavier, and Michael Fassbender seems like perfect casting as Erik Lensher (even if his Irish accent slips into his dialogue now and again!)
The relationship between the two friends, sadly destined to become enemies, is the beating heart of First Class. A lot of the action we've become accustomed too throughout these films is sidelined to explore their friendship, and their conflicting ideologies. As the plot comes to a head, and these two really pull in opposite directions, the emotional impact is well earned and hard hitting.
Elsewhere, we have Nicholas Holt as Beast and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. They also fit the billing pretty well, and are a welcome addition to the cast.
As an X-Men comic fan, it's a lovely touch to see less known characters get screen time such as Azazel, Havoc, and finally - Banshee!
We also get an adaption of Emma Frost, although she is criminally underused, merely present as a glorified henchwoman.
Kevin Bacon is the big bad this time round, playing Sebastian Shaw, a relatively minor X-Men villain, who plays his part well in First Class - he never feels like a huge threat, but that works as it doesn't steal the limelight from Erik's descent into Magneto.
The final action scene is enjoyable comic book fun - the small X-Men team clad in yellow and blue outfits (a nod to the original comic costumes), and the setting is full of colour. Its pretty damn glorious.
First Class is a stand out entry into the X-Men franchise, and certainly worth your time, even if you've never seen another X-Men film!
The casting here is pretty strong. James McAvoy is great in the role of a younger and cockier Charles Xavier, and Michael Fassbender seems like perfect casting as Erik Lensher (even if his Irish accent slips into his dialogue now and again!)
The relationship between the two friends, sadly destined to become enemies, is the beating heart of First Class. A lot of the action we've become accustomed too throughout these films is sidelined to explore their friendship, and their conflicting ideologies. As the plot comes to a head, and these two really pull in opposite directions, the emotional impact is well earned and hard hitting.
Elsewhere, we have Nicholas Holt as Beast and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. They also fit the billing pretty well, and are a welcome addition to the cast.
As an X-Men comic fan, it's a lovely touch to see less known characters get screen time such as Azazel, Havoc, and finally - Banshee!
We also get an adaption of Emma Frost, although she is criminally underused, merely present as a glorified henchwoman.
Kevin Bacon is the big bad this time round, playing Sebastian Shaw, a relatively minor X-Men villain, who plays his part well in First Class - he never feels like a huge threat, but that works as it doesn't steal the limelight from Erik's descent into Magneto.
The final action scene is enjoyable comic book fun - the small X-Men team clad in yellow and blue outfits (a nod to the original comic costumes), and the setting is full of colour. Its pretty damn glorious.
First Class is a stand out entry into the X-Men franchise, and certainly worth your time, even if you've never seen another X-Men film!
JT (287 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There’s a lot of love for American Hustle and with a cast such as this it is easy to see why. It’s a film that oozes glitz and glamour and has a slick sense of stability with shades Scorsese as an attempt at a crime caper.
Bale is top draw, an opening shot that requires no dialogue sees Bale’s stomach bloating Irving Rosenfeld carefully craft a balding comb over. Then in walks his partner throughout this initial sting, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) with a beautiful perm – and this is just the male cast.
The film is loosely based on a true story. Bale’s con man falls for Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) and the pair look to collude together before being nabbed by the FBI and forced to help bring down a circle of corrupt politicians as a way to avoid prosecution. This is no heist from the Soderbergh play book, but a slow churning plan that involves fake sheikhs and mafia bosses and is the brainchild of agent DiMaso who targets Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) as one of the many poor unfortunates looking to make change in a growing 70s society.
Supporting cast are exceptional, none more so than Jennifer Lawrence, as Rosenfeld’s long suffering wife who during proceedings threatens to blow the whole plan wide open. That’s not to say that Amy Adams isn’t well worth her role, but the wardrobe department must have been short on ideas for her if all that was around were dresses with plunging necklines.
Overall it plays out well but does suffer confusion as you wonder who is playing who during the whole affair. All the way through I felt that something wasn’t quite right with it. For me it didn’t have the lasting impact that The Fighter had or even Silver Linings Playbook, but as a film that wants to capture everything the 70s were about it does a stupendous job.
Bale is top draw, an opening shot that requires no dialogue sees Bale’s stomach bloating Irving Rosenfeld carefully craft a balding comb over. Then in walks his partner throughout this initial sting, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) with a beautiful perm – and this is just the male cast.
The film is loosely based on a true story. Bale’s con man falls for Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) and the pair look to collude together before being nabbed by the FBI and forced to help bring down a circle of corrupt politicians as a way to avoid prosecution. This is no heist from the Soderbergh play book, but a slow churning plan that involves fake sheikhs and mafia bosses and is the brainchild of agent DiMaso who targets Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) as one of the many poor unfortunates looking to make change in a growing 70s society.
Supporting cast are exceptional, none more so than Jennifer Lawrence, as Rosenfeld’s long suffering wife who during proceedings threatens to blow the whole plan wide open. That’s not to say that Amy Adams isn’t well worth her role, but the wardrobe department must have been short on ideas for her if all that was around were dresses with plunging necklines.
Overall it plays out well but does suffer confusion as you wonder who is playing who during the whole affair. All the way through I felt that something wasn’t quite right with it. For me it didn’t have the lasting impact that The Fighter had or even Silver Linings Playbook, but as a film that wants to capture everything the 70s were about it does a stupendous job.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated King of Thorns in Books
Nov 18, 2019
It won't be a surprise that in this book we find Jorg installed as king in his own right. It is also his wedding day. Rather inconventiently his castle is also about to be attacked by a huge army and he just doesn't have the troops to stop them.
The main story thread takes place over the day of the wedding and the battle to save his castle and kingdom. Any worries that Jorg has become soft in the years since the first book are swifly put aside as it's clear that with a proper army he can simply cause mayhem on a larger scale.
Like the first book there is also a 'flashback' story, again taking place four years previously, a year after he declared himself king. In this his journey takes him to other parts of the broken empire, showing more variety than the first book. There is also more use of arcane powers - for good and evil - and other adversaries join the story.
I thought the first book was excellent, if a little light on plot. This follow up is another notch up on the scale. The battle scenes are tenser, the plans even more desperate. The plot is now in full swing and moves nicely between the two story threads, events from four years previously having direct impact on the present.
We also find out more about The Builders and the world that Jorg inhabits, all of it totally fascinating, and once again Jorg is not above using the 'ancient' technology to further his ends.
The characterisation is better in this book, simply because more time is taken to flesh them out, but not at the expense of the speed of the story. Lawrence really is a natural story teller.
The plot twists and turns, and the reader is left guessing at each turn of the battle at what Jorg is going to do next and how he is going to win through the insurmountable odds stacked against him.
This really is an amazing book. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
The main story thread takes place over the day of the wedding and the battle to save his castle and kingdom. Any worries that Jorg has become soft in the years since the first book are swifly put aside as it's clear that with a proper army he can simply cause mayhem on a larger scale.
Like the first book there is also a 'flashback' story, again taking place four years previously, a year after he declared himself king. In this his journey takes him to other parts of the broken empire, showing more variety than the first book. There is also more use of arcane powers - for good and evil - and other adversaries join the story.
I thought the first book was excellent, if a little light on plot. This follow up is another notch up on the scale. The battle scenes are tenser, the plans even more desperate. The plot is now in full swing and moves nicely between the two story threads, events from four years previously having direct impact on the present.
We also find out more about The Builders and the world that Jorg inhabits, all of it totally fascinating, and once again Jorg is not above using the 'ancient' technology to further his ends.
The characterisation is better in this book, simply because more time is taken to flesh them out, but not at the expense of the speed of the story. Lawrence really is a natural story teller.
The plot twists and turns, and the reader is left guessing at each turn of the battle at what Jorg is going to do next and how he is going to win through the insurmountable odds stacked against him.
This really is an amazing book. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Warner Brothers movie San Andreas stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as Chief Ray Gaines, Carla Gugino as Emma Gaines, Alexandra Daddario as their daughter Blake Gaines, Paul Giamatti as scientist Lawrence, Ioan Gruffudd as Daniel (Emma’s new love interest, as she & Chief Gaines are about to finalize their divorce), and Archie Panjabi as Serena, a reporter.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Apr 2, 2020
Decent but Definitely the Worst of the Trilogy
Narcotics detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) are back getting into a heap of shit as they try and take down an ecstasy ring.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.