Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Free State of Jones (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When we look at the Civil War period, we are often confronted with numbers: the numbers of the dead, the numbers of those fighting, the pay, the amount of bullets and munitions used. One thing we rarely discuss is depth with regard to the people and circumstances surrounding the war. We are concerned with particular battles and what major leaders were victorious or fell. We, either through school or the collective of movies created about the period, do not get to see the people for who they are and the variables surrounding their existence during this period. We do not have the ability to comprehend how the war affected them in losing their property, loved ones, or even how they face starvation and violence. We don’t get the chance to see slaves other than a myopic, generalized representation that doesn’t show us how they were able to survive in the face of danger multiple sides. The Free State of Jones corrects many of the mistakes and missed opportunities of previous films, of which there are many, that deal with slavery, the Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, and the South.
In The Free State of Jones, Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight a southerner who begins to see the hypocrisy of the Civil War and deserts from the Confederate Military. Upon his return he seeks to support his relatives and neighbors who are being taken advantage of by the Confederacy. His movement grows to where he and an army of men and women of different backgrounds begin fighting back against the Confederacy in the attempt to assert their autonomy and sovereignty.
The film is beautifully shot and allows for the display of serenity during all of the chaos that is shown throughout. One strength that director Gary Ross demonstrates is his ability to demonstrate that there were many layers to the War. Slavery is the central theme and he goes beyond this to show how much race played into the war and its lasting effect that we are still dealing with today. He points out through the film that we had a moment to be a transformative nation, but there were so many people who wanted to the status quo to remain that they prevented any and all social progress that seemed to threaten their perceived social standing. With respect to slavery, Free State gives voices to slaves and Freedmen during the period rather than having them on the periphery or invisible all together. The film offers an authenticity and depth that many films of this period are fearful or reluctant to engage in. There is warfare, there is violence, there is struggle, but the film offers more. It shows humanity. It demonstrates how people recognized what was wrong and took a stand. It also does not play with the history in order to have issues romanticized. It is honest in its application and for some, that will not sit well.
In The Free State of Jones, Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight a southerner who begins to see the hypocrisy of the Civil War and deserts from the Confederate Military. Upon his return he seeks to support his relatives and neighbors who are being taken advantage of by the Confederacy. His movement grows to where he and an army of men and women of different backgrounds begin fighting back against the Confederacy in the attempt to assert their autonomy and sovereignty.
The film is beautifully shot and allows for the display of serenity during all of the chaos that is shown throughout. One strength that director Gary Ross demonstrates is his ability to demonstrate that there were many layers to the War. Slavery is the central theme and he goes beyond this to show how much race played into the war and its lasting effect that we are still dealing with today. He points out through the film that we had a moment to be a transformative nation, but there were so many people who wanted to the status quo to remain that they prevented any and all social progress that seemed to threaten their perceived social standing. With respect to slavery, Free State gives voices to slaves and Freedmen during the period rather than having them on the periphery or invisible all together. The film offers an authenticity and depth that many films of this period are fearful or reluctant to engage in. There is warfare, there is violence, there is struggle, but the film offers more. It shows humanity. It demonstrates how people recognized what was wrong and took a stand. It also does not play with the history in order to have issues romanticized. It is honest in its application and for some, that will not sit well.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Batman: Detective Comics, Volume 5: A Lonely Place of Living in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Alright, alright, alright! (whoa, who let Matthew McConaughey in here?!?) I am coming to the near ending of James Tynion IV's run on "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS. After this, one more volume to go: VOL. VI: THE FALL OF THE BATMEN. But, now I am getting ahead of myself, eh? Let's refocus back on this volume...
The ride thus far has been quite good! Tynion's treatment of Batman gives us a more faceted aspect of the Dark Knight. Yes, there is still the "Dark" to his "Knight", but there is also a bit of humanity, like the way he is in regard to Tim Drake, as well as Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. It reminds of what I liked most about the character as I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, something that appears to have been forgotten as Tom King continues to present a Batman that really was not needed! I look forward to him taking over from King on the BATMAN main book!
Spoiler, unfortunately, was still kinda mopey and angst-y in this volume as well. I dunno. When she came on board as the fourth Robin and then became the fourth Batgirl, I passed on it. It really did not have any attraction for me. However, in the first three volumes of "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS, before Tim was grabbed by Mr. Oz (or was it Dr. Oz? lol), she was quite likeable, even kinda fun. After the whole "Tim Incident", the suck-itude was strong and hard! Hopefully, she will be more herself in Tynion's final volume of 'TEC!
The story was quite good, as it dealt with Tim Drake, and his role in the DCU since Dr. Manhattan made those missing 10 years go bye-bye. At points, it felt very much like a hackneyed plot element, but it still was not that bad. Not great, mind you, unlike the previous volumes, but not the worse treatment (that goes to King) of the Batman fam!
The other element that left this off my "Favorites" shelf, as well as only as high as 3 Stars, was the art from Eddy Barrows. He had some really great backgrounds and figure shots, but his faces? Um, no. Several times it looked like Tim was grinning when he should not have. Also, there were some other "that's not right" facial moments for much of the other supporting characters. I think he is a good artist, but I think whoever was editing that run should have been more aware of that!
Now, Alvaro Martinez? Perfect! His style was perfectly suited to Gotham City and the world of Batman. I would have loved him for the whole volume instead of the little bit he had. Hmm.. Maybe Tynion IV can bring him along for his upcoming run on BATMAN? #hopeful
So, yeah, I <i>liked</i> "A Lonely Of Living", but I didn't <i>love</i> it, dig? There was some good stuff, but overall, I would likely not want to re-visit it at a later date. Ah well, on to FALL OF THE BATMEN..
The ride thus far has been quite good! Tynion's treatment of Batman gives us a more faceted aspect of the Dark Knight. Yes, there is still the "Dark" to his "Knight", but there is also a bit of humanity, like the way he is in regard to Tim Drake, as well as Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. It reminds of what I liked most about the character as I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, something that appears to have been forgotten as Tom King continues to present a Batman that really was not needed! I look forward to him taking over from King on the BATMAN main book!
Spoiler, unfortunately, was still kinda mopey and angst-y in this volume as well. I dunno. When she came on board as the fourth Robin and then became the fourth Batgirl, I passed on it. It really did not have any attraction for me. However, in the first three volumes of "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS, before Tim was grabbed by Mr. Oz (or was it Dr. Oz? lol), she was quite likeable, even kinda fun. After the whole "Tim Incident", the suck-itude was strong and hard! Hopefully, she will be more herself in Tynion's final volume of 'TEC!
The story was quite good, as it dealt with Tim Drake, and his role in the DCU since Dr. Manhattan made those missing 10 years go bye-bye. At points, it felt very much like a hackneyed plot element, but it still was not that bad. Not great, mind you, unlike the previous volumes, but not the worse treatment (that goes to King) of the Batman fam!
The other element that left this off my "Favorites" shelf, as well as only as high as 3 Stars, was the art from Eddy Barrows. He had some really great backgrounds and figure shots, but his faces? Um, no. Several times it looked like Tim was grinning when he should not have. Also, there were some other "that's not right" facial moments for much of the other supporting characters. I think he is a good artist, but I think whoever was editing that run should have been more aware of that!
Now, Alvaro Martinez? Perfect! His style was perfectly suited to Gotham City and the world of Batman. I would have loved him for the whole volume instead of the little bit he had. Hmm.. Maybe Tynion IV can bring him along for his upcoming run on BATMAN? #hopeful
So, yeah, I <i>liked</i> "A Lonely Of Living", but I didn't <i>love</i> it, dig? There was some good stuff, but overall, I would likely not want to re-visit it at a later date. Ah well, on to FALL OF THE BATMEN..
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Gold (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The pursuit of the big gold strike drives Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) deep into the jungles of Indonesia. Wells is a third generation Nevada prospector trying to keep the mining company from going under. He is unable to secure a loan or investment for mining projects. He is watching his reputation take a major hit, being seen as an alcoholic and laughing stock in the industry. He is down to his last dime and working out of a bar when he pawns his girlfriend Kay’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) watch and gets on a plane to Indonesia. He is headed to meet an eager geologist Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez) also in the last throws of his career in. The put together Acosta and disheveled Wells strike a deal. The unlikely duo head into the uncharted jungle in search of the mother lode. After months of failure, through Wells bout with Malaria, a crew who quit and monsoon weather the impossible happens and the two have found what looks like the largest gold deposit in history. The two men who were outcast in their fields are now the most popular miners on the planet. Everyone wants to be a part of this deal and get a piece of the gold. While Acosta stays in Indonesia to operate the day to day of the mining operation Wells heads back to Reno to secure money for digging up the gold. It’s not long that major mining companies and Wall Street investors are knocking on Wells door. Whisking him off to New York in private planes and throwing lavish parties. The now begins the real test to see if he can handle the success and not blow the largest strike of his life.
Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana) Gold is a wild, based on true events, story. Which means it probably has some truths, some half-truths and some almost too wild to be true but maybe true moments. McConaughey’s performance as Wells is excellent. The character at times is a slobbish, out of control alcoholic, that appears to be over his head and out of his element. But most of the time his determination to make a name for himself and his never say no attitude has you rooting for him, even when his is passed out in his underwear on the floor. The rest of the performances are good in support. The relationship with Ramirez’ character and their unlikely friendship is really well done. It took two people who seemed completely different and allowed us to see how they could come together for one goal to become good partners and friends. The story overall is good not great. It took us on a journey with Wells and mixed in really serious themes with outlandish situations. There are times that Wells antics seem forced and don’t completely disrupt the flow but definitely slow it down. It had those moments that definitely made me laugh and others that were really emotional and raw. In that way it was a blend of comedy and drama. Which for the most part mixed together really well. The film took place in the 1980’s and definitely was shot in a way that gave it a feel of the era. I enjoyed the overall the cinematography not overly spectacular but good.
The film was an enjoyable experience for me. A couple of memorable moments and a surprise, to me, at the end. There were some stretches in the story and some over the top antics but still fun.
Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana) Gold is a wild, based on true events, story. Which means it probably has some truths, some half-truths and some almost too wild to be true but maybe true moments. McConaughey’s performance as Wells is excellent. The character at times is a slobbish, out of control alcoholic, that appears to be over his head and out of his element. But most of the time his determination to make a name for himself and his never say no attitude has you rooting for him, even when his is passed out in his underwear on the floor. The rest of the performances are good in support. The relationship with Ramirez’ character and their unlikely friendship is really well done. It took two people who seemed completely different and allowed us to see how they could come together for one goal to become good partners and friends. The story overall is good not great. It took us on a journey with Wells and mixed in really serious themes with outlandish situations. There are times that Wells antics seem forced and don’t completely disrupt the flow but definitely slow it down. It had those moments that definitely made me laugh and others that were really emotional and raw. In that way it was a blend of comedy and drama. Which for the most part mixed together really well. The film took place in the 1980’s and definitely was shot in a way that gave it a feel of the era. I enjoyed the overall the cinematography not overly spectacular but good.
The film was an enjoyable experience for me. A couple of memorable moments and a surprise, to me, at the end. There were some stretches in the story and some over the top antics but still fun.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Magic Mike XXL (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When we last saw Mike Lane (Channing Tatum) he was trading in his g-string and the adulation of grown women with lots of dollar bills to spare, for a custom furniture business of his own and a serious relationship with a girl named Brooke. He said goodbye to his band of magical, muscular men (and by magical, we mean in the art of making clothes disappear) and headed off into a better future.
Or so he thought.
Three years later, we find Mike has found a little success, his company has grown by one employee. The empty apartment with no sign of a roommate suggests his future no longer includes Brooke. A phone call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) has Mike donning a suit to attend a “wake”. Cue the reunion with his old gang that is far from somber, and more of a ruse to see him. Apparently, his orphaned crew is set on one last hurrah before they follow in Mike’s footsteps and go after their own entrepreneurial dreams.
Does Mike want in on the swan song of stripteases at Myrtle Beach’s stripper convention? Of course not. He has a business to run, employees to pay, he postures. But considering this movie is a sequel entitled “Magic Mike XXL” you know he changes his mind. And, boy, how he changes his mind! With a little help from power tools and Genuwine’s “Pony”, natch.
Magic Mike XXL is a road trip of discovery for Mike, Tarzan, Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Ken (Matt Bomer), Tobias (Gabriel Iglesias) and Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangeniello). There were a few times I wondered where exactly this story was going, but as ensemble features go, the insightful peeks into the guys’ individual stories distracted from the meandering plot. Okay, why I was looking for a plot in a movie clearly made to titillate fans of sculpted male phsyiques, I don’t know. Sorry. Not sorry.
The road to Myrtle Beach is littered with conquests, old and new, and epiphanies fueled by pharmaceuticals inspire the Kings of Tampa to learn a few new tricks along the way. XXL actually achieves that rare feat of being better than the original. I know, that may not exactly be high praise, but it delivers more of what fans enjoyed in the original – the male entertainment.
XXL has the same awkward, but slightly improved banter between Mike and the females he encounters, but it also has new routines, a sexier emcee in Jada Pinkett-Smith (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) and it doesn’t require Kevin Nash to dance like a lost mannequin. There are some eyebrow-raising casting choices for a couple of new strippers. You may find yourself asking “Hey, is that who I think it is jumping all over that woman?” And “Okay…so he doesn’t actually strip. He just sings?” But don’t worry, that singer inspires Matt Bomer to do both. Very well. How did I not know Matt Bomer could sing?
The finale is one the screener audience, the majority of which were female, of course, did not want to end. I admit I could’ve stayed in my seat for more Channing Tatum and professional dancer, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who could make his own Magic Malik movie. As my girlfriends and I left the theater, one commented that her face hurt from smiling the whole time. At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, we all agreed that the only way the movie could have been better is if it was shown on the IMAX screen in 3D. Maybe in Dbox seats.
Probably not a movie women will want to take their significant others to, but their girlfriends for a ladies night out? Hell to the yeah.
For story, acting and plot? Ummm 2 out of 5
For sheer, eye-candy entertainment? 4 stars.
Or so he thought.
Three years later, we find Mike has found a little success, his company has grown by one employee. The empty apartment with no sign of a roommate suggests his future no longer includes Brooke. A phone call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) has Mike donning a suit to attend a “wake”. Cue the reunion with his old gang that is far from somber, and more of a ruse to see him. Apparently, his orphaned crew is set on one last hurrah before they follow in Mike’s footsteps and go after their own entrepreneurial dreams.
Does Mike want in on the swan song of stripteases at Myrtle Beach’s stripper convention? Of course not. He has a business to run, employees to pay, he postures. But considering this movie is a sequel entitled “Magic Mike XXL” you know he changes his mind. And, boy, how he changes his mind! With a little help from power tools and Genuwine’s “Pony”, natch.
Magic Mike XXL is a road trip of discovery for Mike, Tarzan, Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Ken (Matt Bomer), Tobias (Gabriel Iglesias) and Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangeniello). There were a few times I wondered where exactly this story was going, but as ensemble features go, the insightful peeks into the guys’ individual stories distracted from the meandering plot. Okay, why I was looking for a plot in a movie clearly made to titillate fans of sculpted male phsyiques, I don’t know. Sorry. Not sorry.
The road to Myrtle Beach is littered with conquests, old and new, and epiphanies fueled by pharmaceuticals inspire the Kings of Tampa to learn a few new tricks along the way. XXL actually achieves that rare feat of being better than the original. I know, that may not exactly be high praise, but it delivers more of what fans enjoyed in the original – the male entertainment.
XXL has the same awkward, but slightly improved banter between Mike and the females he encounters, but it also has new routines, a sexier emcee in Jada Pinkett-Smith (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) and it doesn’t require Kevin Nash to dance like a lost mannequin. There are some eyebrow-raising casting choices for a couple of new strippers. You may find yourself asking “Hey, is that who I think it is jumping all over that woman?” And “Okay…so he doesn’t actually strip. He just sings?” But don’t worry, that singer inspires Matt Bomer to do both. Very well. How did I not know Matt Bomer could sing?
The finale is one the screener audience, the majority of which were female, of course, did not want to end. I admit I could’ve stayed in my seat for more Channing Tatum and professional dancer, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who could make his own Magic Malik movie. As my girlfriends and I left the theater, one commented that her face hurt from smiling the whole time. At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, we all agreed that the only way the movie could have been better is if it was shown on the IMAX screen in 3D. Maybe in Dbox seats.
Probably not a movie women will want to take their significant others to, but their girlfriends for a ladies night out? Hell to the yeah.
For story, acting and plot? Ummm 2 out of 5
For sheer, eye-candy entertainment? 4 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting Stephen King stories for the screen has long been a difficult problem for Hollywood. For every “Misery” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many others such as “The Mangler”, “Cell”, “and Graveyard Shift” and many more where things did not go as planned.
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
I checked up on the BBFC about language allowed in the different rated films. A 15 may have frequent strong language, "the strongest terms may be acceptable if justified by the context", it also says that "aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)