Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pain & Gain (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Michael Bay’s latest film Pain and Gain suffers from a bit of performance anxiety. It starts hot and flashy, becomes humorous and then starts to drag as it realizes it needs to actually deliver. This is unfortunate because if Bay focused on delivering an entertaining movie from start to finish he may have succeeded. Instead we are constantly reminded by expository text on screen and one of the five unnecessary voiceovers that “sometimes the facts are stranger than fiction.” And the facts are that we get a film here that starts out as a comedy, evolves into a kidnapping/extortion story with a few more jokes only to end with minimal action and no redeeming opportunities for our protagonists. Plus the final jokes or shock opportunities are lost in the fact that our main characters become less and less likeable as the story evolves.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
Mark Wahlberg plays body-builder and trainer Daniel Lugo, a self-described “doer” who is tired of working hard only to never reach the level of success that many of his rich clients have achieved. Fed up with his everyday life of being broke, Logo decides it is time to take what he thinks should be his. Together with the help of his roided-out, impotent employee Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con who found Jesus Paul (Dwayne Johnson), the trio decide to kidnap and extort the jerk off wealthy client Victor (Tony Shalhoub) for everything thing he has. The hilarity ensues while it’s obvious that these muscle heads do not have to smarts to pull off this elaborate plan other than what they have seen in the movies.
It should be noted here that Wahlberg is once again great as a character that does not possess a lot of smarts. Mackie delivers another solid character performance to add to his resume but it is Johnson who steals the show. In a movie where at first glance his physique fits right in, it is his softer more emotional side that shows some range that we have never seen from him before. He plays an ex-con who is determined to change his life only to be slowly sucked back into the lifestyle that put him in jail in the first place. Johnson’s emotional range has him delivering perhaps his best performance ever.
Eventually these three break Victor and take everything he has and they start to live out their dreams. But like all things that take no skill or real effort to earn, the three squander their new found wealth and go looking for another target. All while Victor hires a private detective (Ed Harris) to help bust the trio as the local cops do not believe that some muscle heads could pull off the elaborate heist.
And here is where the film starts to fall apart. The three main characters start to change from fun loving hard working characters to bad guys. The things they do to gain their wealth are repulsive and it stops being funny. Victor is a terrible character that is hard to like in the first place, so you do not really feel bad for him when he loses everything. It is just that you do not really feel happy for our anti-heroes either. And when the story enters its third act after dragging through the second, it feels rushed to close out the film as the gang decides to make a run at another wealthy target.
Furthermore, every character get his/hers own voice over. Seriously, what is the point? It is one thing for Wahlberg to have his own narration as he is the main character, however even Harris gets his own character development through dialogue. It makes the story disjointed and made me feel unsure about who or what I should be rooting for.
In the end I walked out of the theater feeling like we watched two different movies. A rags-to-riches comedy in the beginning that morphs into an unfunny crime drama by the end that has to remind you again and again that you are watching something that is based on a true story. It is a shame because I enjoyed the beginning of this film. I wish that Bay would have taken even additional liberties to make a more consistent film from start to finish on what was already a loosely based true story in the first place.
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/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All the Money in the World starts when John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer) get kidnapped in Rome, the ransom is $17 Million, the only person that can help her mother Gail Harris (Williams) get the money is the estranged billionaire grandfather J Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) who isn’t willing to pay a single dollar to get his favourite grandson back.
Fletcher Chase (Wahlberg) is recruited to negotiate a deal with the kidnappers, but Getty isn’t willing to spare a dollar to get him back as the situation starts to get out of hand as time starts to run out on getting John Paul Getty III back alive.
REPORT THIS AD
Thoughts on All the Money in the World
Characters – Gail Harris is the mother of John Paul Getty III, she has given up her fortune she could have had from her divorce to keep her son, she must go back to her old father in law to get the money, even after she doesn’t get the money she leads the campaign to save her son. J Paul Getty is the richest man in the world, he has made the money by taking whatever he wants and will never give up money for anything that doesn’t increase his value. Businessman at heart he will only do a deal for his own good. Fletcher Chase is the deal maker, he has been able to negotiate deals for Getty for years and now he is assigned to help retrieve the grandson.
Performances – Michelle Williams is the true star of this movie, she shines in every scene she is in, showing the strength on front of the cameras and the weakness behind them. Christopher Plummer is great in his role which was one that we get to see him take very late in the process. Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his role, taking a supporting position he handles everything without becoming over the top like you would imagine him doing.
Story – The story here follows the kidnapping of the grandchild of the richest man in the world and follows whether he is willing to spend his fortune to get him back alive. We have the concerned mother that will do anything to get him back, even go against the father-in-law. While the story does come off slow at times as we do go through the same process too often, but it does show how greed can drive people to make terrible decisions.
Biopic/Crime/Mystery – This is meant to be about a real person, not sure how real the story is truly about, this could be considered one of the biggest kidnapping cases of all time if is real though.
Settings – The film does use the backdrops wonderfully through the film to make us feel like we are part of the scenes we are watching through, the beauty stands out here.
Scene of the Movie – Williams performance is something to sit and enjoy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel long.
Final Thoughts – This is a good crime thriller, it shows us just how far people will go for money and how far people will go to keep it.
Overall: Long strong movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/04/23/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017/
Fletcher Chase (Wahlberg) is recruited to negotiate a deal with the kidnappers, but Getty isn’t willing to spare a dollar to get him back as the situation starts to get out of hand as time starts to run out on getting John Paul Getty III back alive.
REPORT THIS AD
Thoughts on All the Money in the World
Characters – Gail Harris is the mother of John Paul Getty III, she has given up her fortune she could have had from her divorce to keep her son, she must go back to her old father in law to get the money, even after she doesn’t get the money she leads the campaign to save her son. J Paul Getty is the richest man in the world, he has made the money by taking whatever he wants and will never give up money for anything that doesn’t increase his value. Businessman at heart he will only do a deal for his own good. Fletcher Chase is the deal maker, he has been able to negotiate deals for Getty for years and now he is assigned to help retrieve the grandson.
Performances – Michelle Williams is the true star of this movie, she shines in every scene she is in, showing the strength on front of the cameras and the weakness behind them. Christopher Plummer is great in his role which was one that we get to see him take very late in the process. Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his role, taking a supporting position he handles everything without becoming over the top like you would imagine him doing.
Story – The story here follows the kidnapping of the grandchild of the richest man in the world and follows whether he is willing to spend his fortune to get him back alive. We have the concerned mother that will do anything to get him back, even go against the father-in-law. While the story does come off slow at times as we do go through the same process too often, but it does show how greed can drive people to make terrible decisions.
Biopic/Crime/Mystery – This is meant to be about a real person, not sure how real the story is truly about, this could be considered one of the biggest kidnapping cases of all time if is real though.
Settings – The film does use the backdrops wonderfully through the film to make us feel like we are part of the scenes we are watching through, the beauty stands out here.
Scene of the Movie – Williams performance is something to sit and enjoy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel long.
Final Thoughts – This is a good crime thriller, it shows us just how far people will go for money and how far people will go to keep it.
Overall: Long strong movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/04/23/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
On April 20th 2010, approximately 40 miles off of the Louisiana coast, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank spilling over 3 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill, also known as the Gulf oil spill and BP oil spill, is the worst oil spill in U.S. history, and cost 11 crew members their lives. It’s also one of the largest environmental disasters in history, who’s total cost to the marine life, fishing community, and entire Gulf coast is still unknown. The film Deepwater Horizon is based on the true story of the men and women who were working on the rig the day of the disaster.
As a new team arrives for a 21-day shift they can already tell something is not exactly right, when the contracted testing crew is leaving without conducting critical tests. The man in charge of the vessel, Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), sets out to find out why the contractors have been dismissed and who let them go. Chief electronics technician Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg) also goes to question the crew as to what has happened while he was off ship and how long the list is of things he needs to fix. Through a quick investigation by Mike and Jimmy find that BP officials, headed by Vidrine (John Malkovich), are the ones who made the decision. The BP officials chose to assume that everything was fine, and since the Deepwater Horizon was 43 days past their deadline and the rising costs were mounting. Their decision was that it was time to cap the well and move to the next site. That didn’t sit well with Mr. Jimmy, as most of the crew call him, so he demands that one more test is to be run before anything else happens.
The BP officials remind him of the cost and loss of money but eventually agree to the test. The initial test fails but before additional test can be run Jimmy is called away to another part of the vessel. With the addition test being inconclusive, and Mike and Jimmy not around, Vidrine pressures the crew to push forward and move on. Reluctantly the crew and Jimmy agree to move forward. A frustrated Jimmy retires to his crew quarters to get ready for a long night. Mike heads to his shop to video chat with his wife and start the monumental task of fixing all that is wrong aboard the Deepwater Horizon. At about 10 PM the entire vessel was rocked by an explosion. With that the crew rushes frantically to try and stop an even greater disaster and make their way safely off the Deepwater Horizon.
Director Peter Berg (Lone Survivor, Hancock, The Kingdom) does a great job of holding a steady pace throughout this film. The story moves well and once the action begins the intensity and suspense left me on the edge of my seat. The casting is great with Dylan O’Brien, Kate Hudson, Gina Rodriguez and others joining the previously mentioned Wahlberg, Russell and Malkovich. In focusing on the men and women who were on the Deepwater Horizon and their families it makes it a very creative an emotional tribute to the 11 men who perished that night. It does paint the large oil company (BP) as a villain, driven by profit to a point of recklessness, in a way that may be a little too political for some. I found it an informative story, showing a different side to a very well-known disaster.
As a new team arrives for a 21-day shift they can already tell something is not exactly right, when the contracted testing crew is leaving without conducting critical tests. The man in charge of the vessel, Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), sets out to find out why the contractors have been dismissed and who let them go. Chief electronics technician Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg) also goes to question the crew as to what has happened while he was off ship and how long the list is of things he needs to fix. Through a quick investigation by Mike and Jimmy find that BP officials, headed by Vidrine (John Malkovich), are the ones who made the decision. The BP officials chose to assume that everything was fine, and since the Deepwater Horizon was 43 days past their deadline and the rising costs were mounting. Their decision was that it was time to cap the well and move to the next site. That didn’t sit well with Mr. Jimmy, as most of the crew call him, so he demands that one more test is to be run before anything else happens.
The BP officials remind him of the cost and loss of money but eventually agree to the test. The initial test fails but before additional test can be run Jimmy is called away to another part of the vessel. With the addition test being inconclusive, and Mike and Jimmy not around, Vidrine pressures the crew to push forward and move on. Reluctantly the crew and Jimmy agree to move forward. A frustrated Jimmy retires to his crew quarters to get ready for a long night. Mike heads to his shop to video chat with his wife and start the monumental task of fixing all that is wrong aboard the Deepwater Horizon. At about 10 PM the entire vessel was rocked by an explosion. With that the crew rushes frantically to try and stop an even greater disaster and make their way safely off the Deepwater Horizon.
Director Peter Berg (Lone Survivor, Hancock, The Kingdom) does a great job of holding a steady pace throughout this film. The story moves well and once the action begins the intensity and suspense left me on the edge of my seat. The casting is great with Dylan O’Brien, Kate Hudson, Gina Rodriguez and others joining the previously mentioned Wahlberg, Russell and Malkovich. In focusing on the men and women who were on the Deepwater Horizon and their families it makes it a very creative an emotional tribute to the 11 men who perished that night. It does paint the large oil company (BP) as a villain, driven by profit to a point of recklessness, in a way that may be a little too political for some. I found it an informative story, showing a different side to a very well-known disaster.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” could be a summary of this modern-age disaster movie. In 2010 the “Deepwater Horizon” drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana failed in spectacular fashion, bursting into flames and spewing millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in what was the worst oil-spill in American history. Mark Wahlberg plays the well-respected electrical ‘Mr fixit’ Mike Williams on the rig, reporting to the Operations Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell).
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
VAG_Abbo (4 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Great CGI work as always (3 more)
Little bits of Autobot and Cybertronian history sprinkled in
Lots of humour
Anthony Hopkins (watch it and you will understand)
Story was good yet a bit convoluted (2 more)
Lack of Dinobot screen time
Optimus not a big feature in this one
Better than expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing this film get slated by "professional" reviewers my hopes weren't very high for this instalment of a franchise that I personally enjoy. I was a pleasant surprise by how enjoyable this film was and maybe the number of laughs this film produces helps with that. It's nice to see that this film has visited the history of Cybertron and its race, but at the same time, it isn't over-explaining things and visiting the past too much. Anthony Hopkins has yet again given a great performance in this role and Mark Wahlberg gives a good show as well. For me personally, I think the trailers are a little deceiving as Optimus doesn't feature a great deal in this film. To be honest I think that there isn't enough screen time for any of the transformers as this one seems to be more about the humans, and considering the movie is called Transformers I feel that this is a bit of a letdown. Also, there was no explanation as to how Bumblebee gets his voice back and why it disappears as quick as it shows up. Yes, it's good that Optimus snaps out of the mind control (or is it bad coding in the ECU? LOL) at the sound of his old friend's real voice, but seriously how easy did that happen? If that's all it took then why didn't Bee just talk to him at the start instead of trading blows with each other and risking dying. Yes, maybe it is to get the point across that Bee will do anything for Optimus, but they are in a war they are losing so why let your strongest ally be fighting for the other side for so long? And what about Grimlock and Slag?? Very small bit parts for the Dinobots AND they changed Slags name to Slug!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Patriots Day (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
There are events in history that are burned into our memories. The attack on Pearl Harbor, JFK assassination, Challenger explosion, Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11 stand out as moments when their respective generations ask “where were you when?” The same can be said with the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013. In Patriot’s Day we bear witness to the various people involved with the events that unfolded during that week. We are reminded of the tension and fear that the nation experienced as law enforcement tried to find those responsible. The film reopens a wound that has just begun to heal so that we are reminded of the vulnerability that everyone, from every walk of life has to terrorism and acts of violence.
Patriot’s Day stars Mark Wahlberg as a police officer and native Bostonian who is placed on duty for the Boston Marathon. The film is not about him or his personal experience. Rather, the film is more about the myriad of individuals who witness or fall victim to the attack that day. Unlike similar films that deal with the topic of terrorism, the film does not focus on the effect the events have on one or two people. The film is complex and demonstrates the circumstances of the attack, the investigation, the apprehension, and the personal experiences through a variety of voices and faces. The film makes the experience personal and does not depend on sensationalism to sell the story.
The film will captivate those that see it in being able to learn more about the individuals involved or who fell victim. It is also remarkable in its ability to weave the storytelling so that each player has a strong development before their portion of the tale is fully realized. It allows for an appreciation of the individuals involved and demonstrates that they are more than just names in a report. Patriot’s Day is a film that will open wounds for those who witnessed and experienced the events first-hand, but allows for those who have little to no memory of that week to delve deeper into the way that the events played out and truly understand the manner in which the city of Boston went from hurting, to healing, to being strong.
Patriot’s Day stars Mark Wahlberg as a police officer and native Bostonian who is placed on duty for the Boston Marathon. The film is not about him or his personal experience. Rather, the film is more about the myriad of individuals who witness or fall victim to the attack that day. Unlike similar films that deal with the topic of terrorism, the film does not focus on the effect the events have on one or two people. The film is complex and demonstrates the circumstances of the attack, the investigation, the apprehension, and the personal experiences through a variety of voices and faces. The film makes the experience personal and does not depend on sensationalism to sell the story.
The film will captivate those that see it in being able to learn more about the individuals involved or who fell victim. It is also remarkable in its ability to weave the storytelling so that each player has a strong development before their portion of the tale is fully realized. It allows for an appreciation of the individuals involved and demonstrates that they are more than just names in a report. Patriot’s Day is a film that will open wounds for those who witnessed and experienced the events first-hand, but allows for those who have little to no memory of that week to delve deeper into the way that the events played out and truly understand the manner in which the city of Boston went from hurting, to healing, to being strong.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Uncharted (2022) in Movies
Feb 16, 2022
After numerous attempts which saw talent attached only to depart before filming began, “Uncharted” has finally arrived on the big screen.
The movie is based on the hit Playstation series of games by Naughty Dog and stars Tom Holland as Nathan Drake, a young man who is as adept at history as he is with pickpocketing which he uses to offset his income from Bartending.
Nathan’s brother fled the law years earlier and aside from Postcards has had no contact with him over the years. Things change when Victor Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) arrives and recruits Nathan by showing him that he used to work with his brother. Despite misgivings and unresolved feelings; Nathan joins with Victor and finds himself in a daring caper to steal a valuable object that could unlock the key to a gold supply that has been lost for over five hundred years.
Naturally, there are others who want the money, and Nathan, Victory, and their dubious partner Chloe (Sophia Ali); as they rush around the world in one adventure after another to solve the ancient puzzles and stay one step ahead of some very deadly individuals.
The movie has elements of “National Treasure” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in terms of the quests to find ancient treasures mixed with action but keeps things in a simpler context. The focus is not on plot development, character development, or plausibility but considering the film is based on a video game, it does a good job with the source material.
There has been some controversy about the casting of Holland as Nathan is older in the game series, but he goes all-in with his performance even when the acrobatic action sequences does offer many reminders of his Spider-man role.
The action in the game is fun and over-the-top and more than once I thought I should be pushing my X and Square button to help him make the moves necessary to complete the task and survive.
The post-credit scenes offer some great possibilities for future adventures and those would be more than welcome for those looking for some no-brainer escapist entertainment.
3.5 stars out of 5.
The movie is based on the hit Playstation series of games by Naughty Dog and stars Tom Holland as Nathan Drake, a young man who is as adept at history as he is with pickpocketing which he uses to offset his income from Bartending.
Nathan’s brother fled the law years earlier and aside from Postcards has had no contact with him over the years. Things change when Victor Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) arrives and recruits Nathan by showing him that he used to work with his brother. Despite misgivings and unresolved feelings; Nathan joins with Victor and finds himself in a daring caper to steal a valuable object that could unlock the key to a gold supply that has been lost for over five hundred years.
Naturally, there are others who want the money, and Nathan, Victory, and their dubious partner Chloe (Sophia Ali); as they rush around the world in one adventure after another to solve the ancient puzzles and stay one step ahead of some very deadly individuals.
The movie has elements of “National Treasure” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in terms of the quests to find ancient treasures mixed with action but keeps things in a simpler context. The focus is not on plot development, character development, or plausibility but considering the film is based on a video game, it does a good job with the source material.
There has been some controversy about the casting of Holland as Nathan is older in the game series, but he goes all-in with his performance even when the acrobatic action sequences does offer many reminders of his Spider-man role.
The action in the game is fun and over-the-top and more than once I thought I should be pushing my X and Square button to help him make the moves necessary to complete the task and survive.
The post-credit scenes offer some great possibilities for future adventures and those would be more than welcome for those looking for some no-brainer escapist entertainment.
3.5 stars out of 5.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
