Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019 (Updated Jan 13, 2020)
With the (eventually true) whispers about the Disney-Fox merger doing the rounds around Dark Phoenix's release, it arrived to little fanfare. Most people had already written off as a pointless film, and it was a prime target for negativity. So much so, that it was actually the first and only X-Men film I ended up missing in the cinema.
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
The trailer for Dora looked like fun but I went in cautious, luckily I came out having really enjoyed myself. Dora is the step before the new Jumanji films, it's packed with fun daft stuff and it's difficult to hold anything against it.
Dora and her parents live in the jungle where they can explore and learn about everything around them. When her best friend Diego leaves for the city she's left with only Boots, a cheeky monkey, to go on a daily adventure with.
Years later after a breakthrough with their research Dora's parents send her to stay with Diego and his family in the city as they go off looking for their lost Inca civilisation. High school is a bit like a jungle, but not like the one Dora is used to, she muddles through the best she can trying to stay positive.
When the school goes on a field trip to the museum Dora and her friends get cornered by a strange group of people and trapped in a packing crate headed back to the jungle. Dora isn't the only one wanting to know where her parents are, this group of mercenaries are after them too, and the treasure.
Something great about Dora And The Lost City Of Gold is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The TV series was after my time but it's one of those things you still know about. I was pre-worried about the terrible animation on Boots, it didn't exactly look ground-breaking in the trailer, but once the cute little thing got going I didn't really care. Obviously there are lots of things that happen in the cartoon that don't really lend themselves to the big screen. Possibly the most amusing one is Dora breaking the fourth wall to ask if we can say "delicioso", the reaction from everyone in the scene is hilarious and I'm impressed they decided to do it that way.
Isabela Moner made an excellent impression earlier this year in Instant Family and seeing her name on this was brilliant. The age difference to the show makes sense and I love the way they handled it. There's infectious enthusiasm that it was difficult not to succumb to. Having to act with things that aren't there is incredibly difficult to do realistically but you wouldn't know it to watch her in this.
Dora's parents are played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria, it seems like an odd pairing but they were really fun together. You know I love Michael Peña, and he's so goofy and fun in this that it made me very happy. His extended rave music piece was thankfully better than the short clip in the trailer. Eva Longoria was much more down to earth and sensible and the dynamic between them worked really well.
The film managed to incorporate the cartoon in quite a fun way. I'm not sure how they expect parents to explain what happened but that's not my problem so I'm purely entertained by it all. I briefly mentioned the animation of Boots, it's not good but the character is amusing, Swiper the fox has a similar animation issue. He's more annoying to watch and see other characters interact with him, but a fox that talks and walks on his hind legs isn't going to be great in this style of film whatever way you try.
Dora And The Lost City Of Gold really feels like it brings together all the values that the show tries to put across, friendship, learning and good behaviour. It has captured it all in a bright and engaging format while keeping the content amusing and suitable for everyone. I'm very pleased I got to see this it's one of the more amusing releases this year.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/dora-and-lost-city-of-gold-movie-review.html
Dora and her parents live in the jungle where they can explore and learn about everything around them. When her best friend Diego leaves for the city she's left with only Boots, a cheeky monkey, to go on a daily adventure with.
Years later after a breakthrough with their research Dora's parents send her to stay with Diego and his family in the city as they go off looking for their lost Inca civilisation. High school is a bit like a jungle, but not like the one Dora is used to, she muddles through the best she can trying to stay positive.
When the school goes on a field trip to the museum Dora and her friends get cornered by a strange group of people and trapped in a packing crate headed back to the jungle. Dora isn't the only one wanting to know where her parents are, this group of mercenaries are after them too, and the treasure.
Something great about Dora And The Lost City Of Gold is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The TV series was after my time but it's one of those things you still know about. I was pre-worried about the terrible animation on Boots, it didn't exactly look ground-breaking in the trailer, but once the cute little thing got going I didn't really care. Obviously there are lots of things that happen in the cartoon that don't really lend themselves to the big screen. Possibly the most amusing one is Dora breaking the fourth wall to ask if we can say "delicioso", the reaction from everyone in the scene is hilarious and I'm impressed they decided to do it that way.
Isabela Moner made an excellent impression earlier this year in Instant Family and seeing her name on this was brilliant. The age difference to the show makes sense and I love the way they handled it. There's infectious enthusiasm that it was difficult not to succumb to. Having to act with things that aren't there is incredibly difficult to do realistically but you wouldn't know it to watch her in this.
Dora's parents are played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria, it seems like an odd pairing but they were really fun together. You know I love Michael Peña, and he's so goofy and fun in this that it made me very happy. His extended rave music piece was thankfully better than the short clip in the trailer. Eva Longoria was much more down to earth and sensible and the dynamic between them worked really well.
The film managed to incorporate the cartoon in quite a fun way. I'm not sure how they expect parents to explain what happened but that's not my problem so I'm purely entertained by it all. I briefly mentioned the animation of Boots, it's not good but the character is amusing, Swiper the fox has a similar animation issue. He's more annoying to watch and see other characters interact with him, but a fox that talks and walks on his hind legs isn't going to be great in this style of film whatever way you try.
Dora And The Lost City Of Gold really feels like it brings together all the values that the show tries to put across, friendship, learning and good behaviour. It has captured it all in a bright and engaging format while keeping the content amusing and suitable for everyone. I'm very pleased I got to see this it's one of the more amusing releases this year.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/dora-and-lost-city-of-gold-movie-review.html
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 28, 2019
Back on form
Fox made a smart move with First Class. After just four movies, the X-Men movie franchise had already started to feel a bit stale. The solution? Take the story way back for a 60s adventure.
The casting here is pretty strong. James McAvoy is great in the role of a younger and cockier Charles Xavier, and Michael Fassbender seems like perfect casting as Erik Lensher (even if his Irish accent slips into his dialogue now and again!)
The relationship between the two friends, sadly destined to become enemies, is the beating heart of First Class. A lot of the action we've become accustomed too throughout these films is sidelined to explore their friendship, and their conflicting ideologies. As the plot comes to a head, and these two really pull in opposite directions, the emotional impact is well earned and hard hitting.
Elsewhere, we have Nicholas Holt as Beast and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. They also fit the billing pretty well, and are a welcome addition to the cast.
As an X-Men comic fan, it's a lovely touch to see less known characters get screen time such as Azazel, Havoc, and finally - Banshee!
We also get an adaption of Emma Frost, although she is criminally underused, merely present as a glorified henchwoman.
Kevin Bacon is the big bad this time round, playing Sebastian Shaw, a relatively minor X-Men villain, who plays his part well in First Class - he never feels like a huge threat, but that works as it doesn't steal the limelight from Erik's descent into Magneto.
The final action scene is enjoyable comic book fun - the small X-Men team clad in yellow and blue outfits (a nod to the original comic costumes), and the setting is full of colour. Its pretty damn glorious.
First Class is a stand out entry into the X-Men franchise, and certainly worth your time, even if you've never seen another X-Men film!
The casting here is pretty strong. James McAvoy is great in the role of a younger and cockier Charles Xavier, and Michael Fassbender seems like perfect casting as Erik Lensher (even if his Irish accent slips into his dialogue now and again!)
The relationship between the two friends, sadly destined to become enemies, is the beating heart of First Class. A lot of the action we've become accustomed too throughout these films is sidelined to explore their friendship, and their conflicting ideologies. As the plot comes to a head, and these two really pull in opposite directions, the emotional impact is well earned and hard hitting.
Elsewhere, we have Nicholas Holt as Beast and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. They also fit the billing pretty well, and are a welcome addition to the cast.
As an X-Men comic fan, it's a lovely touch to see less known characters get screen time such as Azazel, Havoc, and finally - Banshee!
We also get an adaption of Emma Frost, although she is criminally underused, merely present as a glorified henchwoman.
Kevin Bacon is the big bad this time round, playing Sebastian Shaw, a relatively minor X-Men villain, who plays his part well in First Class - he never feels like a huge threat, but that works as it doesn't steal the limelight from Erik's descent into Magneto.
The final action scene is enjoyable comic book fun - the small X-Men team clad in yellow and blue outfits (a nod to the original comic costumes), and the setting is full of colour. Its pretty damn glorious.
First Class is a stand out entry into the X-Men franchise, and certainly worth your time, even if you've never seen another X-Men film!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part III (1982) in Movies
Aug 4, 2020
Disclaimer: I still like this film, in the same way I like the whole franchise for better or worse, but man, Part III is a struggle to get through at times.
The main issue is the pacing and dialogue. I always found Part 2 Jason to be pretty intimidating, almost like a feral animal, but this time around, he's sneaking about Higgin's Haven, causing all kinds of hijinks and skulking in the distance. Leave that shit to Michael Myers and give me the Jason that's an unstoppable bull in a china shop!
This approach to Jason means that there is a ludicrous number of fake out scares in the first half of the film. It becomes trying pretty quickly.
The script is absolutely piss poor, no two ways about it - although I do appreciate the more frequent attempts at humour than what came before. Some of the characters are memorable in their own way - Shelley and Fox to name a couple, but none of the characters are developed much - watching the special features, it was made clear that the use of 3D and the increased technical issues that came with it took up most of the attention whilst filming - a classic case of actors doing the best with what they were given, which wasn't much in this instance!
Although all of this ensures that the end product doesn't begin to touch the first two in terms of quality, there are still some positives of course. This was the entry that gave Jason his iconic hockey mask for starters, and the make up work done on actor Richard Brooker is impressive even today. The practical work put into the films many death scenes is easy to appreciate, and the overall look of the film is pure 80s slasher, which is never a bad thing.
It's not the best film in the series, and certainly not the worst, and if you like slashers as much as I do, then there's definitely something for you here, even if the end result feels a bit aimless.
The main issue is the pacing and dialogue. I always found Part 2 Jason to be pretty intimidating, almost like a feral animal, but this time around, he's sneaking about Higgin's Haven, causing all kinds of hijinks and skulking in the distance. Leave that shit to Michael Myers and give me the Jason that's an unstoppable bull in a china shop!
This approach to Jason means that there is a ludicrous number of fake out scares in the first half of the film. It becomes trying pretty quickly.
The script is absolutely piss poor, no two ways about it - although I do appreciate the more frequent attempts at humour than what came before. Some of the characters are memorable in their own way - Shelley and Fox to name a couple, but none of the characters are developed much - watching the special features, it was made clear that the use of 3D and the increased technical issues that came with it took up most of the attention whilst filming - a classic case of actors doing the best with what they were given, which wasn't much in this instance!
Although all of this ensures that the end product doesn't begin to touch the first two in terms of quality, there are still some positives of course. This was the entry that gave Jason his iconic hockey mask for starters, and the make up work done on actor Richard Brooker is impressive even today. The practical work put into the films many death scenes is easy to appreciate, and the overall look of the film is pure 80s slasher, which is never a bad thing.
It's not the best film in the series, and certainly not the worst, and if you like slashers as much as I do, then there's definitely something for you here, even if the end result feels a bit aimless.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
If you hold the film rights to an iconic and beloved comic book series, one would think you would do everything possible to see that it flourishes under you watch. For 29th Century Fox, The Fantastic Four is an asset that should be a gem of their studio as the long-running Marvel comic series has had legions of fans for generations.
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated FAME in Books
Oct 24, 2018
An Interesting Exploration of Fame
Raise your hand if you LOVED Family Ties as a kid! And had a crush on Alex P. Keaton? And wanted TO BE Mallory!?! Justine Bateman was an idol of mine in the 80's. If I could be like her, or look like her, I pressed my parents to give me a sister just like her! But I got stuck with a brother. Boo!
It's funny, because when I first heard about this book, I said first thing, "Whatever happened to her?" in that snarky, snide voice - like oh, she was has-been, she didn't do anything after Family Ties, she's a one-hit wonder.... And THAT is exactly the type of attitude Justine addresses in this book. (I'm totally sorry for what I said btw Justine and I still love you!)
If you're looking for the behind the scenes secrets and juicy scandal of the beloved sitcom - this is not the book. If you want the scoop on MJ Fox and hanging with child stars of the 80's - nope, not that book either. In fact, one of the first chapters in the book fully explains this - the book is NOT a memoir. It's an exploration of fame. Justine dissects everything from childhood fame in the 80's, to reality star "fame" of today, as well as both the construction AND destruction of fame that social media can make happen. I was fascinated by her take on all things fame. I felt for her - being an actress on a hit TV show, and only being seen for THAT. That her education, and directing, and successes in business mean nothing - cause the "whatever happened to her" mentality translates to - well, if we haven't seen her on TV anymore - she must be a failure in life.
I loved reading this - she's frantic, and passionate, and, OK I'll say it- a bit crazy, yes - but do you blame her? Imagine people saying about you "Boy, she sure has let herself go" on a public forum, on google searches, on Twitter. Just cause the last time they saw her she was 21 - and now she's 50. Well, clearly she's aged - duh. Obviously she doesn't LOOK the same!
I gobbled up every chapter and loved her take on how crazy it is to be famous, but how much crazier it is today. Sure, there's some namedropping, some mentions of Michael J. Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, and more - and there's even a bunch of color photos in the book that she talks about and references throughout the book, which I loved. I didn't need the juicy gossip, as I felt like it made me understand celebrities more and totally got me out of that mentality of "Oh, they wanted to be in the spotlight, so they are just automatically targets." No. I feel terrible now for ever ragging on a celeb in the spotlight - especially the young ones out there.
But I'm still not laying off the reality "stars" ;) haha.
It's funny, because when I first heard about this book, I said first thing, "Whatever happened to her?" in that snarky, snide voice - like oh, she was has-been, she didn't do anything after Family Ties, she's a one-hit wonder.... And THAT is exactly the type of attitude Justine addresses in this book. (I'm totally sorry for what I said btw Justine and I still love you!)
If you're looking for the behind the scenes secrets and juicy scandal of the beloved sitcom - this is not the book. If you want the scoop on MJ Fox and hanging with child stars of the 80's - nope, not that book either. In fact, one of the first chapters in the book fully explains this - the book is NOT a memoir. It's an exploration of fame. Justine dissects everything from childhood fame in the 80's, to reality star "fame" of today, as well as both the construction AND destruction of fame that social media can make happen. I was fascinated by her take on all things fame. I felt for her - being an actress on a hit TV show, and only being seen for THAT. That her education, and directing, and successes in business mean nothing - cause the "whatever happened to her" mentality translates to - well, if we haven't seen her on TV anymore - she must be a failure in life.
I loved reading this - she's frantic, and passionate, and, OK I'll say it- a bit crazy, yes - but do you blame her? Imagine people saying about you "Boy, she sure has let herself go" on a public forum, on google searches, on Twitter. Just cause the last time they saw her she was 21 - and now she's 50. Well, clearly she's aged - duh. Obviously she doesn't LOOK the same!
I gobbled up every chapter and loved her take on how crazy it is to be famous, but how much crazier it is today. Sure, there's some namedropping, some mentions of Michael J. Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, and more - and there's even a bunch of color photos in the book that she talks about and references throughout the book, which I loved. I didn't need the juicy gossip, as I felt like it made me understand celebrities more and totally got me out of that mentality of "Oh, they wanted to be in the spotlight, so they are just automatically targets." No. I feel terrible now for ever ragging on a celeb in the spotlight - especially the young ones out there.
But I'm still not laying off the reality "stars" ;) haha.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Michael Bay had a lot to prove with the third instalment of his big bot franchise. The scathing reviews of Revenge of the Fallen from nearly every critic who went to see it proved that even giant robots aren’t safe from the picky eyes of the global audience. Now, I may get lambasted for this but I preferred number 2 to number 1, so let’s see if number 3 can impress.
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Wall Street (1987) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
When looking to review a film like this, there are two distinct points of view to take in to a account:
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.