Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Taken 3 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Impossible to recommend
The first Taken propelled Liam Neeson to action man stardom and became one of the most surprising hits of 2009. Its successor to some extent managed to capture the same thrilling suspense despite its ridiculous 12A certification.
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Taken 3 (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Liam Neeson may be an actor, an actor with a “particular set of skills,” some of
which entertain audiences around the world with action packed thrills on the big
screen. Was he able to do it again in his latest film Taken 3?
The film centers around Bryan Mill’s (Neeson) ex wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) and
her relationship problems with Stuart (Dougray Scott). She seeks comfort in Mills
and though he remains in love with Lenore, he would rather she figure things out
in her marriage before anything happens between them. Stuart begins to be
suspicious of the relationship between the two and decides to ask Mills to stay
away from Lenore while they work things out. Mills receives a text the following
day asking him to meet her at his place for a shoulder tho cry on. Unfortunately
upon arriving with breakfast, he discovers her lifeless body in his bed. Before
he had a moment to take everything in, the police barge in and try to arrest him
for the murder. In true Mill’s fashion, he is able to escape though only steps
behind is inspector Dotzler (Forest Whitaker) who is trying to piece together
every clue that seemingly points away from Bryan Mills as the culprit. Let us not
forget about his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) who was the victim in the first film
and might just be in this film.
My expectations weren’t high for this installment of Taken. Some may agree with me
that as with most films that spawn sequels, the first film is usually the best. As
a huge fan of the first Taken I knew that the third one, just like the second one
would be worth seeing at least once but that would probably it. This film had far
less action than its predecessors which is a little strange if you ask me. Now
don’t get me wrong, Liam Neesen is an amazing actor in this genre however
sometimes that really isn’t enough. An actor can only do so much with what they
are given. In his case it might have been the script. The editing was a bit choppy
and the cinematography a bit sloppy.
In the case of this film, I would’ve expected a little bit more. I think it would
be wise to leave this film as the last and final one. I think that they have
milked this cow dry. As I have stated above, this film is worth seeing at least
once although you may want to leave it up to redbox and skip theatre prices.
which entertain audiences around the world with action packed thrills on the big
screen. Was he able to do it again in his latest film Taken 3?
The film centers around Bryan Mill’s (Neeson) ex wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) and
her relationship problems with Stuart (Dougray Scott). She seeks comfort in Mills
and though he remains in love with Lenore, he would rather she figure things out
in her marriage before anything happens between them. Stuart begins to be
suspicious of the relationship between the two and decides to ask Mills to stay
away from Lenore while they work things out. Mills receives a text the following
day asking him to meet her at his place for a shoulder tho cry on. Unfortunately
upon arriving with breakfast, he discovers her lifeless body in his bed. Before
he had a moment to take everything in, the police barge in and try to arrest him
for the murder. In true Mill’s fashion, he is able to escape though only steps
behind is inspector Dotzler (Forest Whitaker) who is trying to piece together
every clue that seemingly points away from Bryan Mills as the culprit. Let us not
forget about his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) who was the victim in the first film
and might just be in this film.
My expectations weren’t high for this installment of Taken. Some may agree with me
that as with most films that spawn sequels, the first film is usually the best. As
a huge fan of the first Taken I knew that the third one, just like the second one
would be worth seeing at least once but that would probably it. This film had far
less action than its predecessors which is a little strange if you ask me. Now
don’t get me wrong, Liam Neesen is an amazing actor in this genre however
sometimes that really isn’t enough. An actor can only do so much with what they
are given. In his case it might have been the script. The editing was a bit choppy
and the cinematography a bit sloppy.
In the case of this film, I would’ve expected a little bit more. I think it would
be wise to leave this film as the last and final one. I think that they have
milked this cow dry. As I have stated above, this film is worth seeing at least
once although you may want to leave it up to redbox and skip theatre prices.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Taken (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This film ranks in the top films I have ever seen.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw the trailer for this film a few months before its release. I can't remember looking forward to a film so much from just seeing the trailer. The Trailer set the film up perfectly. By the time I finally got to see it, my expectations were so high I knew I would be disappointed. Wow was I wrong.
The film starts off well, good introductions to the key characters. Bryan's daughter manipulating her parents into allowing her to go the Paris with her friend. She makes the promise to call at regular intervals. A promise that is broken almost immediately. Her father, played excellently by Liam Neeson, finally gets to speak to her on the phone. During this time the house she is staying in is broken into and she sees her friend being attacked. She lets her father know what is happening. He tells her to hide under the bed. Then, shockingly he tells her that she will be taken. His prediction is right and after she is taken one of the abductors finds the phone and hears her father telling them that he will find them and kill them. The abductor wishes him luck and hangs up the phone.
This is also the main part of the trailer. What grabbed me was the way Neeson spoke to the abductor. You would expect panic and anger, but no. He speaks to him in the calmest voice you will ever hear. This tone is frightening. You totally believe that this man will carry out his threat. And he does so with such style and believability. You find out he has Special Forces training and he puts them to use in dispatching everyone in his way. But unlike classic action films, the way he does it I found to be very believable. Everything he does is calculated and no energy is wasted. There are no crazy drawn out gunfights, no spectacular martial arts fight scenes. What you get is believable, he takes out people in his way quickly and efficiently.
Neeson is perfect in this role, not a typical action star, but he pulls the role off effortlessly. You believe in his character and when the film ended I found myself wanting more. For me this is what movies should be about.
The film is written by Luc Besson, a master in this kind of film.
This film ranks in the top films I have ever seen along with Leon: The Professional also by Luc Besson.
The film starts off well, good introductions to the key characters. Bryan's daughter manipulating her parents into allowing her to go the Paris with her friend. She makes the promise to call at regular intervals. A promise that is broken almost immediately. Her father, played excellently by Liam Neeson, finally gets to speak to her on the phone. During this time the house she is staying in is broken into and she sees her friend being attacked. She lets her father know what is happening. He tells her to hide under the bed. Then, shockingly he tells her that she will be taken. His prediction is right and after she is taken one of the abductors finds the phone and hears her father telling them that he will find them and kill them. The abductor wishes him luck and hangs up the phone.
This is also the main part of the trailer. What grabbed me was the way Neeson spoke to the abductor. You would expect panic and anger, but no. He speaks to him in the calmest voice you will ever hear. This tone is frightening. You totally believe that this man will carry out his threat. And he does so with such style and believability. You find out he has Special Forces training and he puts them to use in dispatching everyone in his way. But unlike classic action films, the way he does it I found to be very believable. Everything he does is calculated and no energy is wasted. There are no crazy drawn out gunfights, no spectacular martial arts fight scenes. What you get is believable, he takes out people in his way quickly and efficiently.
Neeson is perfect in this role, not a typical action star, but he pulls the role off effortlessly. You believe in his character and when the film ended I found myself wanting more. For me this is what movies should be about.
The film is written by Luc Besson, a master in this kind of film.
This film ranks in the top films I have ever seen along with Leon: The Professional also by Luc Besson.
Terry Whitaker (120 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019
I dont think this was as bad as some people are making out. Problem was always going to be the original Trilogy. It was THAT good! A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return Of the Jedi each had something amazing about it. Each had the 'Jedi' factor. Also had one of the best twists in movie history in Empire Strikes Back!
Phantom Meanace really didnt have any of that. Not at all. It had a great villain in Darth Maul though. Also Ewan Macgregor and Liam Neeson were good in their roles. Yes, the lad was a bit disappointing but that was only cos he was a little...soppy? I shall not mention Jar Ja.....nooooo, I wont say his name!
But, the special effects were pretty amazing, especially on the big screen! The story was ok too. Not too adventurous but plods along ok.
As I said at the beginning, this was always going to be a difficult one if you consider what it follows...or precedes in this case! The hype on this was huge. Gigantically huge. However much it falls short will be magnified because of its hype.
Take the hype away and the film is exciting and fun. But no...not in the same league as the originals.
Phantom Meanace really didnt have any of that. Not at all. It had a great villain in Darth Maul though. Also Ewan Macgregor and Liam Neeson were good in their roles. Yes, the lad was a bit disappointing but that was only cos he was a little...soppy? I shall not mention Jar Ja.....nooooo, I wont say his name!
But, the special effects were pretty amazing, especially on the big screen! The story was ok too. Not too adventurous but plods along ok.
As I said at the beginning, this was always going to be a difficult one if you consider what it follows...or precedes in this case! The hype on this was huge. Gigantically huge. However much it falls short will be magnified because of its hype.
Take the hype away and the film is exciting and fun. But no...not in the same league as the originals.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
A Walk Among the Tombstones stars Liam Neeson as former cop, and former alcoholic, Matthew Scudder in this adaptation of the tenth novel in Lawrence Block’s long-running series. Set in 1999, amid the Y2K scare, Scudder operates just outside of the law as an unlicensed private investigator. Approached by a fellow AA member, he is tasked with finding the men responsible for kidnapping and murdering the wife of a local drug trafficker. Along the way, he receives help from homeless teen T.J. (played, with admirable restraint in a role easy to overdo, by newcomer Brian ‘Astro’ Bradley) and discovers that the two men he is investigating have killed before, and will do so again.
This is exactly the type of movie that I find myself drawn to, a brooding, hard-edged film-noir, but what stops me from enjoying it more and rating it higher is that right from the opening frames, Tombstones, unlike last year’s Prisoners, which defied all my expectations, doesn’t strive to do anything more than to satisfy the requirements of its genre and lean heavily on the performance of its lead.
That being said, it is another fantastic performance from Neeson and, still sporting that questionable American accent, he brings real weight to the character of Scudder. Don’t expect to see a tour-de-force the likes of Denzel Washington battling alcoholism in Flight, but it is refreshing to see these types of characters humanized and played straight in roles that have previously been over-the-top and laughably romanticized.
Another highlight is the relationship between Scudder and T.J, something that from the outset seems a cliché and had the potential to detract from the plot, it is however surprisingly well-constructed. One scene in particular between them is a stand-out as we see Scudder’s reaction to finding out that T.J. has been carrying a presumably stolen firearm. I will refrain from ruining the punchline, but it is a rare piece of frank dialogue and is deservedly shocking in its delivery.
Where A Walk Among the Tombstones unfortunately falls short is in its lack of subtlety, through a heavy-handed score and, more importantly, a bloated running time. More times than I would have liked, I found myself asking, “Is this scene necessary, or relevant?” Less would have been so much more, especially in the case of the two antagonists, who are set up as being formidable psychopaths for our anti-hero, they are instantly deflated through a single moment that depicts the normality of what we assume is their morning routine. Though it’s not unheard of that the most violent of criminals lead ordinary lives, the tongue-in-cheek nature of the scene does nothing to intensify the fear and dread we are supposed to feel toward these men.
Fans of Liam Neeson should be pleased, but what we’re given here is a solid first act and dialogue that ranges from good to great, but ultimately a predictable, over-long, paint-by-numbers effort. Sure, it hits all the right notes atmospherically, but I can’t expect that it will be more or less memorable than any of the other recent thriller entries in Neeson’s oeuvre (anyone remember 2011’s Unknown?). Between this and knowing that a third Taken is on the way, I now find myself longing for another great dramatic turn from him along the lines of Five Minutes of Heaven, or Kinsey.
This is exactly the type of movie that I find myself drawn to, a brooding, hard-edged film-noir, but what stops me from enjoying it more and rating it higher is that right from the opening frames, Tombstones, unlike last year’s Prisoners, which defied all my expectations, doesn’t strive to do anything more than to satisfy the requirements of its genre and lean heavily on the performance of its lead.
That being said, it is another fantastic performance from Neeson and, still sporting that questionable American accent, he brings real weight to the character of Scudder. Don’t expect to see a tour-de-force the likes of Denzel Washington battling alcoholism in Flight, but it is refreshing to see these types of characters humanized and played straight in roles that have previously been over-the-top and laughably romanticized.
Another highlight is the relationship between Scudder and T.J, something that from the outset seems a cliché and had the potential to detract from the plot, it is however surprisingly well-constructed. One scene in particular between them is a stand-out as we see Scudder’s reaction to finding out that T.J. has been carrying a presumably stolen firearm. I will refrain from ruining the punchline, but it is a rare piece of frank dialogue and is deservedly shocking in its delivery.
Where A Walk Among the Tombstones unfortunately falls short is in its lack of subtlety, through a heavy-handed score and, more importantly, a bloated running time. More times than I would have liked, I found myself asking, “Is this scene necessary, or relevant?” Less would have been so much more, especially in the case of the two antagonists, who are set up as being formidable psychopaths for our anti-hero, they are instantly deflated through a single moment that depicts the normality of what we assume is their morning routine. Though it’s not unheard of that the most violent of criminals lead ordinary lives, the tongue-in-cheek nature of the scene does nothing to intensify the fear and dread we are supposed to feel toward these men.
Fans of Liam Neeson should be pleased, but what we’re given here is a solid first act and dialogue that ranges from good to great, but ultimately a predictable, over-long, paint-by-numbers effort. Sure, it hits all the right notes atmospherically, but I can’t expect that it will be more or less memorable than any of the other recent thriller entries in Neeson’s oeuvre (anyone remember 2011’s Unknown?). Between this and knowing that a third Taken is on the way, I now find myself longing for another great dramatic turn from him along the lines of Five Minutes of Heaven, or Kinsey.
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/
Colin Campbell (25 KP) rated Braveheart (1995) in Movies
Apr 28, 2019
Action (2 more)
Swordplay
Freedom
Historically inaccurate (1 more)
Gibson's accent
Hold... Hold... HOOOLLLLDDDD!
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a story this is a great film, unfortunately people who have limited or no knowledge of Scottish History take this film as a portrayal of all things Scottish around this time.
So to save some confusion:
Longshanks died well after Wallace
The French Princess did not exist
The Bruce wasn't a traitor
Wallace wasn't the leader until after Stirling Bridge
Woad hadn't been worn for about 1000 years
It didn't start with the death of his wife
So now I have this off my chest, to the film itself. It is an epic and one of the films that you must see before you die, just like Shawshank, High Noon and Inside Out.
The story of the one group persecuting another, and a man coming back to his village after spending time abroad learning taking revenge on the death of his secret wife cumulating in open rebellion and war is a common story told many times in cinema history. What makes this is the scenery and the cinematography.
The fight scenes show the brutality and barbarity of war in this era in history. This does it expertly!
If you want something more historically accurate look at Rob Roy with Liam Neeson, if you want a chill film this is the one for you.
So to save some confusion:
Longshanks died well after Wallace
The French Princess did not exist
The Bruce wasn't a traitor
Wallace wasn't the leader until after Stirling Bridge
Woad hadn't been worn for about 1000 years
It didn't start with the death of his wife
So now I have this off my chest, to the film itself. It is an epic and one of the films that you must see before you die, just like Shawshank, High Noon and Inside Out.
The story of the one group persecuting another, and a man coming back to his village after spending time abroad learning taking revenge on the death of his secret wife cumulating in open rebellion and war is a common story told many times in cinema history. What makes this is the scenery and the cinematography.
The fight scenes show the brutality and barbarity of war in this era in history. This does it expertly!
If you want something more historically accurate look at Rob Roy with Liam Neeson, if you want a chill film this is the one for you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Wrath of the Titans (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sequels often struggle to live up to the expectations set by their predecessors. Wrath of the Titans delivers. Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes reprise their roles as Perseus, Zeus, and Hades in this continuation of the Clash of the Titans remake from 2010. They’re joined this time by Rosamund Pike, who portrays the strong, female love interest as the beautiful Queen Andromeda.
Perseus has settled down to become a fisherman with his son. His wife has been written out of the story — either by design or because the actress was not available. She seems to be dead for no particular reason. Perseus has chosen to live life as a mortal, despite his father, Zeus (Neeson), offering him a seat of power on Olympus. Early in the movie, Zeus comes to his son and asks for help, telling him something big is coming. Only Perseus, a demi-god, would have the strength to ensure humanity’s survival.
The rest of the story involves Perseus’s journey to save the world from the reawakening of Chronos. Mythology geeks and fantasy buffs will appreciate the severity of this situation.
While the makers of this film certainly didn’t reinvent the wheel, or even attempt to one-up their previous film, they surely succeeded in making an entertaining screenplay. In short: if you liked the first, you will like this one. It has all the action, sword-swinging, flying-horse-riding, and titan-killing you would expect from the series. The CGI is impressive, and the 3D effects were not too objectionable.
One scene in particular stuck out as ill-conceived. The kiss at the end of the film felt forced. There was very little romantic build-up throughout the movie, so it felt as if the filmmakers included the kiss because moviegoers expect to see romantic resolution. Perhaps this is one of the several endings they filmed, at which point they let focus groups make the call. Either way, it felt awkward.
As I said before, if you enjoyed the first, seeing the second is worth your time and money.
Perseus has settled down to become a fisherman with his son. His wife has been written out of the story — either by design or because the actress was not available. She seems to be dead for no particular reason. Perseus has chosen to live life as a mortal, despite his father, Zeus (Neeson), offering him a seat of power on Olympus. Early in the movie, Zeus comes to his son and asks for help, telling him something big is coming. Only Perseus, a demi-god, would have the strength to ensure humanity’s survival.
The rest of the story involves Perseus’s journey to save the world from the reawakening of Chronos. Mythology geeks and fantasy buffs will appreciate the severity of this situation.
While the makers of this film certainly didn’t reinvent the wheel, or even attempt to one-up their previous film, they surely succeeded in making an entertaining screenplay. In short: if you liked the first, you will like this one. It has all the action, sword-swinging, flying-horse-riding, and titan-killing you would expect from the series. The CGI is impressive, and the 3D effects were not too objectionable.
One scene in particular stuck out as ill-conceived. The kiss at the end of the film felt forced. There was very little romantic build-up throughout the movie, so it felt as if the filmmakers included the kiss because moviegoers expect to see romantic resolution. Perhaps this is one of the several endings they filmed, at which point they let focus groups make the call. Either way, it felt awkward.
As I said before, if you enjoyed the first, seeing the second is worth your time and money.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Schindler's List (1993) in Movies
Jan 18, 2021 (Updated Feb 25, 2021)
The fourth in my series of films you would recommend to an alien to explain humanity dovetails nicely with my Hall of Fame inductee this week. It is Steven Spielberg’s seminal anti war epic Shindler’s List (1993).
This one speaks for itself in many ways. As an exploration of evil and the men behind the atrocities committed during the late 30s and early 40s by Nazi Germany it is indispensable. The role played by Ralph Fiennes is especially brave and resonant in reminding us of how ego and power can corrupt beyond the point of anything recognisably human. But it is in the moments of resilience, defiance and sacrifice by the survivors that we fully appreciate the depths of the human spirit. A career defining performance by both Liam Neeson and Sir Ben Kingsley makes this a breathtaking and heartbreaking spectacle in every brutally emotional scene.
I will never forget seeing this in the cinema on its initial release and experiencing the absolute silence as the credits rolled and everyone left the screen and into the night with their thoughts and reflections, simply stunned by its impact. It demonstrates the very best and the very worst of human action and inaction in one perfect movie. Never an easy watch under any circumstances, but one worth dissecting and appreciating for all its genius – the directing, acting, cinematography, music, editing, everything is as near perfect as a film can be.
This one speaks for itself in many ways. As an exploration of evil and the men behind the atrocities committed during the late 30s and early 40s by Nazi Germany it is indispensable. The role played by Ralph Fiennes is especially brave and resonant in reminding us of how ego and power can corrupt beyond the point of anything recognisably human. But it is in the moments of resilience, defiance and sacrifice by the survivors that we fully appreciate the depths of the human spirit. A career defining performance by both Liam Neeson and Sir Ben Kingsley makes this a breathtaking and heartbreaking spectacle in every brutally emotional scene.
I will never forget seeing this in the cinema on its initial release and experiencing the absolute silence as the credits rolled and everyone left the screen and into the night with their thoughts and reflections, simply stunned by its impact. It demonstrates the very best and the very worst of human action and inaction in one perfect movie. Never an easy watch under any circumstances, but one worth dissecting and appreciating for all its genius – the directing, acting, cinematography, music, editing, everything is as near perfect as a film can be.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)