Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Expendables 3 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Many times when a film series reaches it”s third installment, it is out of ideas and running on fumes. The idea that if a film has spawned a successful sequel it must have a trilogy is nothing new in Hollywood, but far too many times the third films loses momentum and goes through the motions for one last payday for the cast and studio.
In “The Expendables 3” Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and company lead the all star cast with a mix of old and new in order to provide a more diverse yet not entirely satisfying third act of the retro action series.
Barney (Sylvester Stallone), leads the remains of his crew on a daring raid as the film opens to free one of his former members played by Wesley Snipes. The action is as intense as ever, but thanks to a PG-13 rating, is much more subdued than we have come to expect from the series.
As Barney and crew contend with age and injuries, it is leaned that a person long thought dead has become one of the biggest arms dealers in the world and has his own private army. What makes matters worse is that said dealer (Mel Gibson), has a very complicated history with Barney and The Expendables and as such this mission is very personal when he is hired to bring him to justice.
With a new crew in place, Barney sets out to settle the score, but soon finds out that complications arise, forcing the old and new crew to unite in a battle against overwhelming odds.
If this seems to be a fairly simplistic overview your right, as this is about as complex as this film gets. There is some effort to show chemistry between the players but backstories and character development are for the most part left out. Gibson on the other hand brings a great new dimension to the film as the backstory to his character as well as his motivations were very interesting and kept my attention in what otherwise could come off as a cartoony villain role.
Harrison Ford replaces Bruce Willis as their C.I.A. contact and brings gruff charm to the role of Drummer and seems to delight in being in on the action as do the new and returning cast.
The biggest issue was that it seemed more retrained than what we expect from the series. Part 2 had the epic airport battle and a great fistacuff finale. Part 3 lacks the intensity and urgency of previous films and the cast appears to be going through the motions, just happy for one more ride.
Stallone reportedly mentioned he had ideas for a 4th film which would be fine with me, but they need to get away from this PG 13 lite version and bring the swaggering, over the top action of the previous films back and fast as with an aging cast, this film seemed very out of date and lacking the retro nostalgia.
That being said, if you want some no-brainer fun, it is worthy of checking out.
http://sknr.net/2014/08/15/expendables-3/
In “The Expendables 3” Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and company lead the all star cast with a mix of old and new in order to provide a more diverse yet not entirely satisfying third act of the retro action series.
Barney (Sylvester Stallone), leads the remains of his crew on a daring raid as the film opens to free one of his former members played by Wesley Snipes. The action is as intense as ever, but thanks to a PG-13 rating, is much more subdued than we have come to expect from the series.
As Barney and crew contend with age and injuries, it is leaned that a person long thought dead has become one of the biggest arms dealers in the world and has his own private army. What makes matters worse is that said dealer (Mel Gibson), has a very complicated history with Barney and The Expendables and as such this mission is very personal when he is hired to bring him to justice.
With a new crew in place, Barney sets out to settle the score, but soon finds out that complications arise, forcing the old and new crew to unite in a battle against overwhelming odds.
If this seems to be a fairly simplistic overview your right, as this is about as complex as this film gets. There is some effort to show chemistry between the players but backstories and character development are for the most part left out. Gibson on the other hand brings a great new dimension to the film as the backstory to his character as well as his motivations were very interesting and kept my attention in what otherwise could come off as a cartoony villain role.
Harrison Ford replaces Bruce Willis as their C.I.A. contact and brings gruff charm to the role of Drummer and seems to delight in being in on the action as do the new and returning cast.
The biggest issue was that it seemed more retrained than what we expect from the series. Part 2 had the epic airport battle and a great fistacuff finale. Part 3 lacks the intensity and urgency of previous films and the cast appears to be going through the motions, just happy for one more ride.
Stallone reportedly mentioned he had ideas for a 4th film which would be fine with me, but they need to get away from this PG 13 lite version and bring the swaggering, over the top action of the previous films back and fast as with an aging cast, this film seemed very out of date and lacking the retro nostalgia.
That being said, if you want some no-brainer fun, it is worthy of checking out.
http://sknr.net/2014/08/15/expendables-3/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fatman (2020) in Movies
Dec 21, 2020
I'll level with you on this one, I had no idea what I was in for, but Mel Gibson as a crazed looking Santa had me sold, so I went ahead a brought this one on DVD.
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Year of Living Dangerously (1983) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Holly Johnson recommended Blade Runner Soundtrack by Vangelis in Music (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Edge of Darkness (2010) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Edge of Darkness starts when Craven (Gibson) get to spend his daughter Emma (Novakovic) only for an unknown gunman killing her on his doorstep, Craven being a homicide detective isn’t allowed to investigate the case for legal reasons, so he decides to go against the law in his search for the murderer.
The early signs make it looks like Craven himself was the target, but it soon comes to light that it might be Emma’s work for a government company run by Jack Bennett (Huston) that might have made her the target and the deeper he digs the more he learns about his daughter.
Thoughts on Edge of Darkness
Characters – Craven is a respect homicide detective, everyone in the force knows just how capable of solving a murder he can be, but when his own daughter is murdered, he starts to go against the law to figure out who and why she was murdered. He will not stop at anything to locate the truth and take out the people that murdered his daughter. Jedburgh is an English man that will help Craven fill in the gaps, while trying to keep him away from the answers, he has been hired to make sure the investment stays safe, without building up a body count. Jack Bennett runs the company that Emma works for, he knows how to answer questions to keep the press happy, while keeping the shady operations under wraps. Emma is the daughter that Craven is delighted to spend time with once again, only she gets murdered and it is her life before this meeting that we get to see her in.
Performances – Mel Gibson might well have had his problems in Hollywood, but when it comes to crime thrillers, he is in his element always shining in these roles without ever looking out of place, and demanding the screen whenever he steps on screen. Ray Winstone is great in his role, which only seems to be around for the calmer or criminal sides of the film. Danny Huston is an actor that can play a villain in his sleep and this is no different, he brings the smug figure to life here. Bojana Novakovic is great in her smaller role which doesn’t need to get much more screen time to add to the story.
Story – The story here follows a homicide detective that starts to investigate the murder of his daughter only to find himself in the middle of a much bigger conspiracy that puts his own life in danger. This story starts off looking like it is going to be a revenge like movie because of how the first murder happens only to become a big conspiracy movie that offers up plenty of miss-direction as we lead to the truth. Any story that can keep you guessing and let try to figure out the ending yourself is an entertaining watch, with the outcome not even needing to be spoon fed to us either. This might well be a remake of a television show, but it plays into the modern ideas and works with how the conspiracy could be relevant for today’s climate.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film starts by just looking like a murder, it soon dives into cover ups, conspiracy and secret groups which shows how the government might go about trying to cover up a secret. The mystery in the film comes from just how the conspiracy keeps managing to unfold to expose more truth about what Emma was involved in.
Settings – The film uses the Boston setting to show how many crimes have been committed in this stricter state which does show us just how big of a conspiracy needs covering up.
Scene of the Movie – Riverside meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see more of Jedburgh.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully intense crime thriller that does keep you guessing throughout the film, we get strong performance throughout and a story that has been modernized without looking out of place.
Overall: Hugely entertaining crime thriller.
The early signs make it looks like Craven himself was the target, but it soon comes to light that it might be Emma’s work for a government company run by Jack Bennett (Huston) that might have made her the target and the deeper he digs the more he learns about his daughter.
Thoughts on Edge of Darkness
Characters – Craven is a respect homicide detective, everyone in the force knows just how capable of solving a murder he can be, but when his own daughter is murdered, he starts to go against the law to figure out who and why she was murdered. He will not stop at anything to locate the truth and take out the people that murdered his daughter. Jedburgh is an English man that will help Craven fill in the gaps, while trying to keep him away from the answers, he has been hired to make sure the investment stays safe, without building up a body count. Jack Bennett runs the company that Emma works for, he knows how to answer questions to keep the press happy, while keeping the shady operations under wraps. Emma is the daughter that Craven is delighted to spend time with once again, only she gets murdered and it is her life before this meeting that we get to see her in.
Performances – Mel Gibson might well have had his problems in Hollywood, but when it comes to crime thrillers, he is in his element always shining in these roles without ever looking out of place, and demanding the screen whenever he steps on screen. Ray Winstone is great in his role, which only seems to be around for the calmer or criminal sides of the film. Danny Huston is an actor that can play a villain in his sleep and this is no different, he brings the smug figure to life here. Bojana Novakovic is great in her smaller role which doesn’t need to get much more screen time to add to the story.
Story – The story here follows a homicide detective that starts to investigate the murder of his daughter only to find himself in the middle of a much bigger conspiracy that puts his own life in danger. This story starts off looking like it is going to be a revenge like movie because of how the first murder happens only to become a big conspiracy movie that offers up plenty of miss-direction as we lead to the truth. Any story that can keep you guessing and let try to figure out the ending yourself is an entertaining watch, with the outcome not even needing to be spoon fed to us either. This might well be a remake of a television show, but it plays into the modern ideas and works with how the conspiracy could be relevant for today’s climate.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film starts by just looking like a murder, it soon dives into cover ups, conspiracy and secret groups which shows how the government might go about trying to cover up a secret. The mystery in the film comes from just how the conspiracy keeps managing to unfold to expose more truth about what Emma was involved in.
Settings – The film uses the Boston setting to show how many crimes have been committed in this stricter state which does show us just how big of a conspiracy needs covering up.
Scene of the Movie – Riverside meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see more of Jedburgh.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully intense crime thriller that does keep you guessing throughout the film, we get strong performance throughout and a story that has been modernized without looking out of place.
Overall: Hugely entertaining crime thriller.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Braveheart (1995) in Movies
Jul 28, 2018
Epic
The Story of Scottish Patriot William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his quest to unite the clans and rise up against their English oppressors.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a hot start by immediately drawing you into the story. Once the camera pans into the hut with all of the hanging bodies, they had my attention right away. The sheer intrigue was enough to make me want to see more.
Characters: 10
The Scots are a crazy bunch and I LOVE them. Whether old or young, they're all tough guys in their own right. One crazy person is enough to make a film interesting, but you put a bunch of them together and now you're really cooking with fire. William Wallace, of course, takes the cake of all the crazies. His character is easily one of my all-time favorite protagonists from his demeanor to the strong message he carries.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You kind of cheat when you shoot a film in Scotland, let's be honest. Beautiful landscapes abound, filled with mountains and lush valleys. I got lost watching William Wallace ride through the countryside on horseback. Made me think, "Damn, am I taking enough vacations?"
It's not the landscapes, however, as the battles are epic and sprawling. You get a taste of a bit of blood or something gory right before it cuts to a new fight. Seeing a fight that probably took hours abbreviated into a couple minutes is jarring and effective. These are some of the best battles captured on film.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Braveheart is a film that easily stands the test of time. The brotherhood of the clans alone is memorable in and of itself. These are guys that lay down their lives for each other to advance their nation. The battles that ensue as a result of the stand that these men take are sheer inspiration. "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
Pace: 10
While the film slows down just slightly after the opening scenes, once the fighting starts, things move forward at a breakneck pace. It drives you from one scene to the next with intensity and passion. Just when you think you've had enough action, you're graced with more! Very solid pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
The ending was a bit deflating, at least for my taste. I respected the realism, but it felt counterintuitive to what the rest of the film was accomplishing. Not horrible, but perhaps a different approach would warrant a better score.
Overall: 90
I never had any interest whatsoever to watch this film and, after finally seeing it, I can't believe I waited this long. Such an inspirational, all-time classic. Loved it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a hot start by immediately drawing you into the story. Once the camera pans into the hut with all of the hanging bodies, they had my attention right away. The sheer intrigue was enough to make me want to see more.
Characters: 10
The Scots are a crazy bunch and I LOVE them. Whether old or young, they're all tough guys in their own right. One crazy person is enough to make a film interesting, but you put a bunch of them together and now you're really cooking with fire. William Wallace, of course, takes the cake of all the crazies. His character is easily one of my all-time favorite protagonists from his demeanor to the strong message he carries.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You kind of cheat when you shoot a film in Scotland, let's be honest. Beautiful landscapes abound, filled with mountains and lush valleys. I got lost watching William Wallace ride through the countryside on horseback. Made me think, "Damn, am I taking enough vacations?"
It's not the landscapes, however, as the battles are epic and sprawling. You get a taste of a bit of blood or something gory right before it cuts to a new fight. Seeing a fight that probably took hours abbreviated into a couple minutes is jarring and effective. These are some of the best battles captured on film.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Braveheart is a film that easily stands the test of time. The brotherhood of the clans alone is memorable in and of itself. These are guys that lay down their lives for each other to advance their nation. The battles that ensue as a result of the stand that these men take are sheer inspiration. "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
Pace: 10
While the film slows down just slightly after the opening scenes, once the fighting starts, things move forward at a breakneck pace. It drives you from one scene to the next with intensity and passion. Just when you think you've had enough action, you're graced with more! Very solid pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
The ending was a bit deflating, at least for my taste. I respected the realism, but it felt counterintuitive to what the rest of the film was accomplishing. Not horrible, but perhaps a different approach would warrant a better score.
Overall: 90
I never had any interest whatsoever to watch this film and, after finally seeing it, I can't believe I waited this long. Such an inspirational, all-time classic. Loved it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Stonehearst Asylum (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the late 19th century in England, medicine was by today’s standards primitive and at times barbaric. The nature of psychiatric care of the times was even more frightening as maladies that today are treated with medication often resulted in a lifetime of confinement in an Asylum where all manner of treatments which today would be considered torture were used.
In the new thriller “Stonehearst Asylum” a young doctor named Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess), travels to a remote asylum on Christmas Eve to being a practical study following his time at Oxford.
He is greeted upon his arrival by Silas Lamb (Ben Kingsley, who is eager to size up the new assistant upon his arrival.
Newgate is fascinated by the patients especially one named Eliza (Kate Beckinsale), who shows a grace and range of talents not normally associated with those who have been committed. It is explained that all of those assigned to Stonehearts are from the upper class of society and as such, their maladies have made them outcasts from polite society.
Edward begins to have concerns when he is told by Eliza that he must leave immediately and not return and despite her warnings, he remains and soon makes a startling discovery.
It is learned that a patient named Salt (Michael Caine) is actually the man in charge of the facility and that Lamb is a dangerous psychopath who has imprisoned or killed the asylum staff and has replaced them with his fellow inmates.
Trapped in a world gone mad, Edward must strive to do his duty as a physician to care for those in need, while trying to walk the line between the madness of Lamb and his fellow inmates.
The film is a well-cast and exciting thriller that keeps you entertained without resorting to the standard scares and tricks of other suspense films.
The characters have a complexity and compassion to them as you will find yourself engrossed by the various characters and their situations.
Director Brad Anderson is no stranger to suspense and he has crafted a captivating take that is rich with the visuals of the era yet remaining a character based drama it its core.
The film is based on a short story by Edgar Allen Poe and Mel Gibson is one of the Producers attached to the film which helps underscore how they were able to assemble such a strong cast to the film despite the lack of a major studio to finance or distribute the film.
The film does have some moments that at times make you wonder why some characters did not take more obvious courses of action but yet the film works in spite of this.
In the end the haunting setting and subject matter mesh well with the characters to create a thrilling and entertaining drama that is one of the more enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/10/24/stonehearst-asylum/
In the new thriller “Stonehearst Asylum” a young doctor named Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess), travels to a remote asylum on Christmas Eve to being a practical study following his time at Oxford.
He is greeted upon his arrival by Silas Lamb (Ben Kingsley, who is eager to size up the new assistant upon his arrival.
Newgate is fascinated by the patients especially one named Eliza (Kate Beckinsale), who shows a grace and range of talents not normally associated with those who have been committed. It is explained that all of those assigned to Stonehearts are from the upper class of society and as such, their maladies have made them outcasts from polite society.
Edward begins to have concerns when he is told by Eliza that he must leave immediately and not return and despite her warnings, he remains and soon makes a startling discovery.
It is learned that a patient named Salt (Michael Caine) is actually the man in charge of the facility and that Lamb is a dangerous psychopath who has imprisoned or killed the asylum staff and has replaced them with his fellow inmates.
Trapped in a world gone mad, Edward must strive to do his duty as a physician to care for those in need, while trying to walk the line between the madness of Lamb and his fellow inmates.
The film is a well-cast and exciting thriller that keeps you entertained without resorting to the standard scares and tricks of other suspense films.
The characters have a complexity and compassion to them as you will find yourself engrossed by the various characters and their situations.
Director Brad Anderson is no stranger to suspense and he has crafted a captivating take that is rich with the visuals of the era yet remaining a character based drama it its core.
The film is based on a short story by Edgar Allen Poe and Mel Gibson is one of the Producers attached to the film which helps underscore how they were able to assemble such a strong cast to the film despite the lack of a major studio to finance or distribute the film.
The film does have some moments that at times make you wonder why some characters did not take more obvious courses of action but yet the film works in spite of this.
In the end the haunting setting and subject matter mesh well with the characters to create a thrilling and entertaining drama that is one of the more enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/10/24/stonehearst-asylum/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Father Stu (2022) in Movies
Sep 25, 2022
One Note Performance In The Lead Sinks Film
When one creates a film that is based on the real life exploits of a person, the Writer/Director of the film will be sorely tempted to include that character in every scene. Which is fine if that character is written in an interesting enough way to keep our attention. When it is NOT written well, then the film is poorer because of it.
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Writer/Director Rosalind Ross’ (BARBARIAN) FATHER STU starring Mark Wahlberg in the titular role. Ms. Ross focuses on really one-trait of this character, never really diving deeper into the soul of the scoundrel who would turn his life around to serve others and, unfortunately, that is how Wahlberg plays this character as well - with the one note of “con-man and schemer” trying to have his charm and charisma carry the day. While this one note is not deep or particularly interesting, Wahlberg commits to this choice and plays Stu in that manner throughout the first part of the film.
And…that would be fine if the Stuart Long character has some sort of change of heart in the middle of the film when he decides to head to the Seminary, but Wahlberg plays this character (and Ross’ Directs this film) with the same one note. Consequently, those around him - and the audience - question his sincerity. I just plain didn’t buy or believe the character in the 2nd half of the movie and that sinks the ending of this film.
Fortunately, this film is populated with some wonderful, nuanced, performances from the Supporting Characters. Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM) is, once again, playing an abandoned wife constantly scrambling and scraping to get by. She has played this sort of roles many, many times before and she is always VERY good. This film is no exception. Malcolm McDowell does more than should be expected with the small part of the Head of the Seminary that Stuart attends. It would be very easy for McDowell to “mail it in”, but he doesn’t. He invests in his character - and his scenes with Wahlberg are much more interesting because of that. Teresa Ruiz (NARCOS) is sincere and believable as Stu’s one-time girlfriend while Cody Fern (AMERICAN HORROR STORY) brings plenty of layers as the character that could be/should be the one-note villain of this piece but is something a bit more.
And then there is Mel Gibson as Stu’s estranged father. He brings his star power - and considerable acting chops - to this pivotal role in the film and it is HIS change that I believed and drove the end of the film. I, actually, wanted to see more of his character.
Ultimately, this movie falls short because of the lack of depth of the performance by Wahlberg - and that’s too bad for the rest of the film is quite good.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When we last saw former cop turned wasteland warrior Max, it was nearly 30 years ago. Writer/Director George Miller had envisioned a follow up back in 2000, but various factors delayed the film so much that star Mel Gibson believed he had become too old to play the character which opened the door for Tom Hardy to don the knee brace of the famous character.
In “Fury Road”, fans are given a lavish spectacle that is one non-stop ride of intensity that is as my wife put it, “pushing me so far back into my seat that I am almost in the row behind us”.
When Max is captured by a vicious group lead by Immortal Joe, he stumbles into a true hell on earth as Joe has legions of warriors, most of whom have various health issues, it is assumed from the post nuclear world in which they live. They use captured individuals as blood donors to help make the sick live longer and Joe himself controls a large supply of fresh water as well as oversees what he considers his breeding stock of women.
When Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), goes rogue and abducts Joe’s harem, this begins a breakneck and deadly pursuit across the wastelands where Max finds himself literally chained to the front of a car as a blood bag for the driver.
Amidst the eventually carnage that follows, Max is able to free himself and forges an uneasy alliance with Furiosa as she is attempting to lead the women she has liberated from Joe to safety.
With Joe and his large band of followers hot on their heels, Max must once again face overwhelming odds to save the day.
The film does an amazing job of creating an intense visual spectacle as the car chases and combat take up a good half the film and they are absolutely breathtaking to watch. CGI is kept to a minimum and what you see on the screen is a clash of metal as vehicles flip through the air, crash, and explode in spectacular fashion.
The film though is light on details as much of the story is left for you to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Theron has explained her characters motivations very well in interviews but in the film it is at times murky. The limited dialogue in the film can at times be hard to understand due to accent and a form of “New Speak” but it is Hardy himself who is most interesting. He plays Max as a strong and silent type who is haunted by ghosts of his past, the people he could not save are a constant presence in his life as he sees them in his dreams and when he is awake, this leads to a character who is reduced to little more than pure survival instinct and does not allow for much in the way of character development.
In many ways this is a reintroduction of Max to a new generation so much of the charisma and intensity that was a part of Gibson’s portrayal has been scaled back to a world weary individual who has pretty much given up on finding the better life that he lost many years ago.
Miller has said he has enough material for two more films and if they are in the same league as this one, I would love to see further adventures for Max, let us just hope the wait is not as long next time out.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/14/mad-max-fury-road/
In “Fury Road”, fans are given a lavish spectacle that is one non-stop ride of intensity that is as my wife put it, “pushing me so far back into my seat that I am almost in the row behind us”.
When Max is captured by a vicious group lead by Immortal Joe, he stumbles into a true hell on earth as Joe has legions of warriors, most of whom have various health issues, it is assumed from the post nuclear world in which they live. They use captured individuals as blood donors to help make the sick live longer and Joe himself controls a large supply of fresh water as well as oversees what he considers his breeding stock of women.
When Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), goes rogue and abducts Joe’s harem, this begins a breakneck and deadly pursuit across the wastelands where Max finds himself literally chained to the front of a car as a blood bag for the driver.
Amidst the eventually carnage that follows, Max is able to free himself and forges an uneasy alliance with Furiosa as she is attempting to lead the women she has liberated from Joe to safety.
With Joe and his large band of followers hot on their heels, Max must once again face overwhelming odds to save the day.
The film does an amazing job of creating an intense visual spectacle as the car chases and combat take up a good half the film and they are absolutely breathtaking to watch. CGI is kept to a minimum and what you see on the screen is a clash of metal as vehicles flip through the air, crash, and explode in spectacular fashion.
The film though is light on details as much of the story is left for you to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Theron has explained her characters motivations very well in interviews but in the film it is at times murky. The limited dialogue in the film can at times be hard to understand due to accent and a form of “New Speak” but it is Hardy himself who is most interesting. He plays Max as a strong and silent type who is haunted by ghosts of his past, the people he could not save are a constant presence in his life as he sees them in his dreams and when he is awake, this leads to a character who is reduced to little more than pure survival instinct and does not allow for much in the way of character development.
In many ways this is a reintroduction of Max to a new generation so much of the charisma and intensity that was a part of Gibson’s portrayal has been scaled back to a world weary individual who has pretty much given up on finding the better life that he lost many years ago.
Miller has said he has enough material for two more films and if they are in the same league as this one, I would love to see further adventures for Max, let us just hope the wait is not as long next time out.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/14/mad-max-fury-road/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.