Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Tony Stark, (Robert Downey Jr.), life has become very complicated for the self-proclaimed genius, philanthropist, billionaire, and playboy. In the new film “Iron Man 3”, Stark is wracked by insomnia and dread following the battle he waged to save New York in “The Avengers”.
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Stark throws himself into his work and endlessly creates new Iron Man suits as well as system upgrades which currently have him at the Mark 42 version which is a huge jump from the Mark VII he was last seen in which was itself a prototype.
When a terrorist named The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), has unleashed a series of bizarre bombings on the world and has opening challenged the President (William Sadler), Stark is caught up in his own fears, most notably protecting his beloved Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
When his friend Happy (John Farveau) is caught in an explosion, Stark openly challenges the Mandarin which results in a devastating helicopter upon Stark and Potts. With the world thinking he has died, Stark sets out to stop the Mandarin at all costs and find a way to battle his inner demons and fears to save the ones he loves and do what he knows is right.
The movie is big on laughs and character as we see a more well-rounded Stark this time out. He is haunted by demons of his past yet committed to improving himself and doing what is right. The film takes a bit of time to get up to speed, but thanks to Downey’s performance you maintain your interest as you are always waiting for what he will do next as he is in total command of the character and never lets the quirks or humor of his situation overshadow his humanity or undermine his performance.
I would have liked to have seen Downey is his armor more kicking butt and taking names, but thankfully the finale is very enjoyable. The converted 3D in the film is very good as although I am not a fan of 3D conversions this was the best I have seen to date as ash, snow, and debris did seem to float into the audience the way it does in films that are shot properly in the new 3D technology.
The supporting cast for the film is very strong especially Kingsley and Guy Pearce and I enjoyed the effort that Writer/Director Shane Black put into allowing the characters time to grow. I was a bit disappointed that Don Cheadle was not given a lot to do in his role especially when playing Iron Patriot/War Machine. The battle at the end of “Iron Man 2” where he and Iron Man took on legions of bad guys had me hoping for more this time out.
That being said, this is a very enjoyable summer movie that shows the franchise is not slowing down or taking the easy road out. There has been discussion that Downey Jr. may step away after the next Avengers film but hopefully that is not to be the case as I could not imagine another actor capturing the role as perfectly as he has.
Following a bonus post credits scene, we are told in the best James Bond style that Tony Stark will return, and you can bet legions of fans will be waiting.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/03/iron-man-3/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Equity (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Today’s movie for your consideration is from the same selection of films you’d find ‘The Boiler Room’ with only this one is far more ‘reality based’. A financial thriller depicting the cutthroat and take-no-prisoners world of investment banking and Wall Street. ‘Equity’ is directed by Meera Menon and written by Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, and Amy Fox. The film centers on investment banker, Naomi Bishop who is attempting to put together one of the biggest deals in her life and Wall Street history after her first ‘failure’, while combating rivals in and outside her own company, across gender lines, and a federal investigation focusing on someone she knows intimately … Or so she thinks.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Very Good Time
It's 2045 and most of the world's population has turned to the virtual world called OASIS which has become a second home for many. When the world's creator James Halladay (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves behind an easter egg inside the virtual world and whoever finds that egg will inherit both his fortune and the OASIS. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) hopes to find that egg before Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) and his greedy corporation IOI can get their hands on it and forever ruin the OASIS.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated We Own the Night (2007) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Crime movie for crime movie fans
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a crime film for crime movie fans. It has it all, from sex, violence, wires and gritty hits. But at its heart is family, here driven by the two leads, Mark Wahlberg and Jequium Phoenix, reunited in yet another of James Grey's films. The tone is dark, with a realistic look as we are taken on trip back to 1988 and a fictional cop family, led by the Deputy Chief Of Police (NYPD) Robert Duvall, who is the father to Wahlberg's up and coming cop, with Phoenix's nightclub manager, who is not a criminal as such, but is a disappointment to his family.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bridge of Spies (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the 1950s the world was locked in the midst of the Cold War where paranoia, mutual distrust, and fear, combined with the threat of nuclear annihilation between the United States and Soviet Union. In “Bridge of Spies” Director Steven Spielberg has once again used history as a basis for a compelling story filled with real characters and emotions.
When suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested New York Tax Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to provide Abel with a competent defense so the United States can show the world that Abel was given a fair trial and due process despite the charges against him.
Although hesitant what defending an accused spy will bring hatred to him and his family, Donovan takes up the task and despite a judge and process that wants to railroad this to a conviction in spite of possible illegal search and seizure, Donovan is able to avoid the death penalty for his client and even files an appeal before the Supreme Court as he is convinced his client was convicted on evidence that was illegally obtained.
At the same time, a young Air Force pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is shot down by the Russians in a U-2 spy plane and is paraded by the Russians on television before being convicted of being a Spy.
This situation increases and already tense situation and when the East German government starts to build the Berlin Wall and takes an American student prisoner for espionage, back channels contact Donovan to discuss a possible exchange of prisoners.
Now since this cannot be done by any official sanction of the U.S. or Russian governments, Donovan must in secret travel to Berlin and meet with figures to obtain a release. The U.S. wants Powers and considers the student an expendable throw in but Donovan is resolute to bring them both home in exchange for his client Abel.
The film is beautifully shot and masterfully acted with top performance by Hanks and the leads. The events are fairly close to the historical accounts I studied as a child and Spielberg is wise to let the story and the characters drive the film and not create over impassioned speeches or tacked on action sequences to build the drama.
The film is an early contender for several Oscar nominations as far as I am concerned as is one of the best movies of 2015.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/16/bridge-of-spies/
When suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested New York Tax Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to provide Abel with a competent defense so the United States can show the world that Abel was given a fair trial and due process despite the charges against him.
Although hesitant what defending an accused spy will bring hatred to him and his family, Donovan takes up the task and despite a judge and process that wants to railroad this to a conviction in spite of possible illegal search and seizure, Donovan is able to avoid the death penalty for his client and even files an appeal before the Supreme Court as he is convinced his client was convicted on evidence that was illegally obtained.
At the same time, a young Air Force pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), is shot down by the Russians in a U-2 spy plane and is paraded by the Russians on television before being convicted of being a Spy.
This situation increases and already tense situation and when the East German government starts to build the Berlin Wall and takes an American student prisoner for espionage, back channels contact Donovan to discuss a possible exchange of prisoners.
Now since this cannot be done by any official sanction of the U.S. or Russian governments, Donovan must in secret travel to Berlin and meet with figures to obtain a release. The U.S. wants Powers and considers the student an expendable throw in but Donovan is resolute to bring them both home in exchange for his client Abel.
The film is beautifully shot and masterfully acted with top performance by Hanks and the leads. The events are fairly close to the historical accounts I studied as a child and Spielberg is wise to let the story and the characters drive the film and not create over impassioned speeches or tacked on action sequences to build the drama.
The film is an early contender for several Oscar nominations as far as I am concerned as is one of the best movies of 2015.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/16/bridge-of-spies/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gray Man (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
Entertaining Enough...but...NOTHING NEW
Have you seen the touring company of Hamilton when it came to your town? You liked it, didn’t you? I sure did, but I didn’t like it as much as I liked the Broadway Company of Hamilton that I saw in NYC the year before.
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2 Guns (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Verdict: Easy to Watch Action Film
Story: 2 Guns starts as we see Bobby (Washington) & Stig (Wahlberg) planning their latest bank robbery before flashing back to one week earlier. We learn that Bobby has been undercover working for his handler Deb (Patton) in the DEA who are trying to take down Papi Greco (Olmos). We also find out Stig’s real motives as he is also undercover but with the military.
When the two find themselves being betrayed they must re-team up to take out the people that framed them making everything right with all the people they have stolen from.
2 Guns is an action comedy that is a real jumper because we start in the middle before going to beginning before getting to the end which automatically doesn’t help pull us in. We never really get the idea of how the two first meet and then when everything happens it all become overly complicated. If you want a simple action film this isn’t going to be for you but in the end this will need you to keep attention. Having too many people involved works for a flat out comedy but the overly serious side of certain moments pulls it all down.
Actor Review
Denzel Washington: Bobby is the undercover DEA agent that is trying to take down a drug cartel with his young partner Stig. When he gets betrayed by Stig he finds himself needing to make up for the crime only to find out he is involved in a bigger picture and having to work with Stig once more. Denzel is good in this role but it won’t be one you will remember.denzel
Mark Wahlberg: Stig is the young partner of Bobby, but he is secretly undercover for the military. When the money is stolen he learns the truth that only puts his own life at risk. He must re-team with Bobby to stop the people out to kill the both of them. Mark is good in this role which is what you would expect him to be in.stuif
Paula Patton: Deb is the former lover and connection with the DEA for Bobby, she has to supporting him whenever he gets the next part of the information. Paula is a solid supporting performance without doing too much.
Edward James Olmos: Papi Greco is the drug lord that both men are trying to take down. He has a reputation of being deadly that makes him one of the deadliest men after our leading men. Edward is solid but is just one of the main villains.
Support Cast: 2 Guns has a big supporting cast that all help with the final outcome of the film without being overly memorable or original.
Director Review: Baltasar Kormakur – Baltasar gives us a solid action film that could be enjoyed through the eyes of the audience.
Action: 2 Guns has a mix of action sequence which involves car chase, fights and fire fights.
Comedy: 2 Guns has good laughs between the two leads but otherwise doesn’t have much.
Crime: 2 Guns puts us through a crime world where we have a group of different men after the money.
Thriller: 2 Guns tries to keep us on the edge throughout but isn’t enough to pull us in.
Settings: 2 Guns has small town settings which are hard to keep on top of where we actually are.
Special Effects: 2 Guns has a couple of needs to effects but not the best when used.
Suggestion: 2 Guns is one for the action fans to try but otherwise you can miss it. (Try It)
Best Part: Car chase between Bobby and Stig.
Worst Part: Too many characters.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $61 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes
Tagline: 2 Guns, 1 Bank.
Overall: Overly complicated action film that doesn’t have enough to pull us in.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/24/2-guns-2013/
Story: 2 Guns starts as we see Bobby (Washington) & Stig (Wahlberg) planning their latest bank robbery before flashing back to one week earlier. We learn that Bobby has been undercover working for his handler Deb (Patton) in the DEA who are trying to take down Papi Greco (Olmos). We also find out Stig’s real motives as he is also undercover but with the military.
When the two find themselves being betrayed they must re-team up to take out the people that framed them making everything right with all the people they have stolen from.
2 Guns is an action comedy that is a real jumper because we start in the middle before going to beginning before getting to the end which automatically doesn’t help pull us in. We never really get the idea of how the two first meet and then when everything happens it all become overly complicated. If you want a simple action film this isn’t going to be for you but in the end this will need you to keep attention. Having too many people involved works for a flat out comedy but the overly serious side of certain moments pulls it all down.
Actor Review
Denzel Washington: Bobby is the undercover DEA agent that is trying to take down a drug cartel with his young partner Stig. When he gets betrayed by Stig he finds himself needing to make up for the crime only to find out he is involved in a bigger picture and having to work with Stig once more. Denzel is good in this role but it won’t be one you will remember.denzel
Mark Wahlberg: Stig is the young partner of Bobby, but he is secretly undercover for the military. When the money is stolen he learns the truth that only puts his own life at risk. He must re-team with Bobby to stop the people out to kill the both of them. Mark is good in this role which is what you would expect him to be in.stuif
Paula Patton: Deb is the former lover and connection with the DEA for Bobby, she has to supporting him whenever he gets the next part of the information. Paula is a solid supporting performance without doing too much.
Edward James Olmos: Papi Greco is the drug lord that both men are trying to take down. He has a reputation of being deadly that makes him one of the deadliest men after our leading men. Edward is solid but is just one of the main villains.
Support Cast: 2 Guns has a big supporting cast that all help with the final outcome of the film without being overly memorable or original.
Director Review: Baltasar Kormakur – Baltasar gives us a solid action film that could be enjoyed through the eyes of the audience.
Action: 2 Guns has a mix of action sequence which involves car chase, fights and fire fights.
Comedy: 2 Guns has good laughs between the two leads but otherwise doesn’t have much.
Crime: 2 Guns puts us through a crime world where we have a group of different men after the money.
Thriller: 2 Guns tries to keep us on the edge throughout but isn’t enough to pull us in.
Settings: 2 Guns has small town settings which are hard to keep on top of where we actually are.
Special Effects: 2 Guns has a couple of needs to effects but not the best when used.
Suggestion: 2 Guns is one for the action fans to try but otherwise you can miss it. (Try It)
Best Part: Car chase between Bobby and Stig.
Worst Part: Too many characters.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $61 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes
Tagline: 2 Guns, 1 Bank.
Overall: Overly complicated action film that doesn’t have enough to pull us in.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/24/2-guns-2013/
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.