Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Big Short (2015) in Movies
Apr 19, 2020
Gets Better On Each Rewatch
Most of you reading this review remember the last time the U.S. had a downturn in it's economy - it was 2008 and the downturn was caused by a bubble that burst in the housing market. Michael Lewis' (author of MONEYBALL) book THE BIG SHORT attempted to explain what happend in lay man's terms. This books was considered "unfilmable" until the most unlikeliest of artists stepped in to make a wonderfully crafted and educational film that was also entertaining.
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Dante's Inferno (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
A commercial for the Dante's Inferno video game aired during Super Bowl XLIV, which gave viewers the impression that the game would be incredibly reminiscent of games like Devil May Cry and God of War. Although I never played the game, Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic was sent to me by the Amazon Vine program. My expectations weren't very high and that seemed to pay off in the long run. The animated feature takes the Batman: Gotham Knight approach where six different animation directors take hold of the film, but Dante's Inferno tells one semi-coherent story.
The film surely has no issue with showing graphic violence, gore, or nudity as there rarely isn't a moment in the 77 minute feature where buckets of blood aren't falling from the sky or where Dante's beloved Beatrice isn't exposing her rather well-endowed set of breasts. The changes in animation seemed rather infrequent and drastic at times while at others it felt a bit more natural. The voice acting is pretty top notch as the film utilizes voice actor veterans such as Mark Hamill, Steve Blum, and Kevin Michael Richardson.
Dante's descent through the nine circles of hell was unintentionally humorous at times though.; the main example being when he's fighting off and fleeing from the army of dead babies in Limbo. Also, his father accepting Lucifer's offer to work for him in exchange for all the gold he desired and the slaying of his mortal son wasn't surprising, but the fact that his mouth now looked like female genitalia was. Certain things just didn't add up at times. In the end, Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic isn't terrible but isn't fantastic either. It's not worth hunting down specifically, but is worth sitting through on a rainy day afternoon or something.
The only special features included on the DVD are the EA game trailer and animatics for five scenes in the film.
For those interested in which animation studio did what, here they are in order:
Film Roman (American animation studio)
Manglobe (Samurai Champloo) picks up when Dante enters Limbo (directed by Shuko Mirase who did Ergo Proxy and Witch Hunter Robin, easily the best out of the bunch)
Dongwoo Animation handles the next four circles of Hell (unfortunately)
JM Animation steps in when Virgil and Dante reach the City of Dis
The final circle is handled by Production I.G.
The film surely has no issue with showing graphic violence, gore, or nudity as there rarely isn't a moment in the 77 minute feature where buckets of blood aren't falling from the sky or where Dante's beloved Beatrice isn't exposing her rather well-endowed set of breasts. The changes in animation seemed rather infrequent and drastic at times while at others it felt a bit more natural. The voice acting is pretty top notch as the film utilizes voice actor veterans such as Mark Hamill, Steve Blum, and Kevin Michael Richardson.
Dante's descent through the nine circles of hell was unintentionally humorous at times though.; the main example being when he's fighting off and fleeing from the army of dead babies in Limbo. Also, his father accepting Lucifer's offer to work for him in exchange for all the gold he desired and the slaying of his mortal son wasn't surprising, but the fact that his mouth now looked like female genitalia was. Certain things just didn't add up at times. In the end, Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic isn't terrible but isn't fantastic either. It's not worth hunting down specifically, but is worth sitting through on a rainy day afternoon or something.
The only special features included on the DVD are the EA game trailer and animatics for five scenes in the film.
For those interested in which animation studio did what, here they are in order:
Film Roman (American animation studio)
Manglobe (Samurai Champloo) picks up when Dante enters Limbo (directed by Shuko Mirase who did Ergo Proxy and Witch Hunter Robin, easily the best out of the bunch)
Dongwoo Animation handles the next four circles of Hell (unfortunately)
JM Animation steps in when Virgil and Dante reach the City of Dis
The final circle is handled by Production I.G.
JT (287 KP) rated Green Lantern (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
You feel that had The Green Lantern arrived on the scene in 2011 not competing with a host of other super hero films, such as Thor, X-Men: First Class and Captain America, it might have had a better welcome.
For me the super hero genre really is bordering a mass overkill, what with this years upcoming Avengers getting so much press its hard to turn a corner without seing one of Iron Man, Hulk or Thor adoring a billboard or poster somewhere.
So it’s a shame then that Hollywood’s Mr. Nice guy, Ryan Reynolds, was given a role so bland and pointless it was almost insulting.
Director Martin Campbell’s previous outings Casino Royale and Edge if Darkness were deep gritty affairs and he really should have carried that over into this, there was so much flamboyant colour you wondered if Joel Schumacher had some how been a part of it.
That isn’t to say that during some stages the film was not enjoyable. Test pilot Hal Jordan is given the power bestowed on him by a mysterious ring with a back story shoe horned into an opening five minute monologue, if you’re not paying attention its going to be a little confusing.
The action and special effects are very good, with the Green Lantern able to concoct a wide range of objects from his mind ranging from missile launchers, swords and even a necklace, all transferred through the power and energy of the ring.
The less so, well Reynolds is surrounded by characters that only really dip their toe into the water of the film. With thousands of Green Lanterns we only really here from two, Tomar-Re and Kilowog voiced by Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan respectively.
Mark Strong as Sinestro on first glance has the look of someone bound to step over to the evil side, and maybe that is to come if a sequel is due at some point.
Peter Sarsgaard’s large headed villain only serves as an entrée before Hal has to tackle the large bellowing cloud that is Parallax, an entity that thrives on sucking out the fear of its victims.
The film has its moments, but it never really has the energy that so many other super hero films have. Perhaps that fact that the back story of Hal is not nearly as exciting as say Spider-man, Batman or any of the Avengers for that matter.
For me the super hero genre really is bordering a mass overkill, what with this years upcoming Avengers getting so much press its hard to turn a corner without seing one of Iron Man, Hulk or Thor adoring a billboard or poster somewhere.
So it’s a shame then that Hollywood’s Mr. Nice guy, Ryan Reynolds, was given a role so bland and pointless it was almost insulting.
Director Martin Campbell’s previous outings Casino Royale and Edge if Darkness were deep gritty affairs and he really should have carried that over into this, there was so much flamboyant colour you wondered if Joel Schumacher had some how been a part of it.
That isn’t to say that during some stages the film was not enjoyable. Test pilot Hal Jordan is given the power bestowed on him by a mysterious ring with a back story shoe horned into an opening five minute monologue, if you’re not paying attention its going to be a little confusing.
The action and special effects are very good, with the Green Lantern able to concoct a wide range of objects from his mind ranging from missile launchers, swords and even a necklace, all transferred through the power and energy of the ring.
The less so, well Reynolds is surrounded by characters that only really dip their toe into the water of the film. With thousands of Green Lanterns we only really here from two, Tomar-Re and Kilowog voiced by Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan respectively.
Mark Strong as Sinestro on first glance has the look of someone bound to step over to the evil side, and maybe that is to come if a sequel is due at some point.
Peter Sarsgaard’s large headed villain only serves as an entrée before Hal has to tackle the large bellowing cloud that is Parallax, an entity that thrives on sucking out the fear of its victims.
The film has its moments, but it never really has the energy that so many other super hero films have. Perhaps that fact that the back story of Hal is not nearly as exciting as say Spider-man, Batman or any of the Avengers for that matter.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the 1980’s the so- called slasher film genre was in full swing. When Michael Myers and the “Halloween” franchise became the highest grossing independent film in cinema history, the studios scrambled to get in on the booming genre and unleashed a flood of psycho killers on the viewing public, for the better part of a decade and a half.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Along with the aforementioned Michael Myers, and the later Freddy Krueger from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, Jason Voorhees of the “Friday The 13Th” series has become a cultural landmark. He has appeared in over ten movies (eleven if you count “Freddy Vs. Jason”) and unleashed havoc on countless oversexed and loaded teens, as well as those unfortunate enough to cross his path.
While the series, to many fans, become stale and largely self mocking with the Jason-in-space themed “Jason X”, the character rebounded nicely with “Freddy Vs. Jason” and had many fans clamoring for a second match up between the two iconic bad guys.
Eventually the powers-that-be decided to go the remake route, which had proven successful with “Halloween” and “My Bloody Valentine”, and have crafted a new “Friday the 13th” which they hope will re-energize the series.
The film opens with a modern re-telling of what was part of the finale of the original film, and hits the ground running with an impressive opening sequence that has Jason menacing a group of teens camping in the woods. The intense first twenty minutes of the film had the audience at the test screening gasping and cheering as the events set the stage for the body of the film, which revolves around another group of young adults taking a trip into the woods for a scenic getaway.
As the group stops for supplies, they encounter a young man who is looking for his sister who vanished in the area six weeks earlier. Despite little luck in his search, and the insistence by the local police that his sister is not anywhere in the area, he remains undaunted and continues his search.
At the same time, the group of young adults embarks on a frenzy of sex, drinking, drugs, and carefree living in the woods unaware that they are about to gain the attention of Camp Crystal Lake’s most infamous former camper.
As the film unfolds, Jason soon unleashes his customary brutality on the group as well as any townies that come across him, and the film deftly mixes some humor with classic horror mayhem. In the time honored formula, a group of survivors soon finds themselves under siege by Jason and must find a way to survive Jason’s wrath.
While the film lacks much in the way of plot and is loaded with a cast of largely unknowns, the film is a refreshing update to the series, knowing what the fans have come to expect and providing plenty of gore and scares. Since the cast exists to be little more than fodder for Jason, there is little effort devoted to fleshing them out as characters other than to provide excuses for most of the ladies in the film to shed their clothes, and a few of the male cast to establish themselves as comic relief, or the jerk who is destined for something special.
Director Marcus Nispel who has a solid pedigree with the recent “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, viral videos of Resident Evil 5, as well as the pending “Alice.” He clearly knows his subject matter and working with Producer Michael Bay and a script from Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (the duo behind “Freddy vs. Jason”), produced a solid by the numbers horror film.
Fans of the series will note clever references to the past films such as Jason’s original mask and will find themselves yelling at the screen over the constant stupidity of the victims as well as the inventive way Jason dispatches his victims. I found myself enjoying the updated Jason because while the movie is faithful to the character, it revitalized him to show a more cunning predator who is not above using traps, bait, and plotting to achieve his means. There was a plot thread in the film that did not really get developed as much as I had hoped, but in the end, the film delivered the goods and sets the stage well for future outings of the machete-wielding Jason.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated We Own the Night (2007) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Crime movie for crime movie fans
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a crime film for crime movie fans. It has it all, from sex, violence, wires and gritty hits. But at its heart is family, here driven by the two leads, Mark Wahlberg and Jequium Phoenix, reunited in yet another of James Grey's films. The tone is dark, with a realistic look as we are taken on trip back to 1988 and a fictional cop family, led by the Deputy Chief Of Police (NYPD) Robert Duvall, who is the father to Wahlberg's up and coming cop, with Phoenix's nightclub manager, who is not a criminal as such, but is a disappointment to his family.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
Maddi Zoe (6 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Soundtrack (phenomenal) (3 more)
Casting/Acting
Choreography
Cinematography
Best original musical in recent days
Michael Gracey’s slick new musical, The Greatest Showman, brings to life the imagination of P.T. Barnum and his creation of the first circus.
Inspired by the legend of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), The Greatest Showman follows Barnum in a pursuit to piece together a dream-like show.
The film follows the businessman as he desperately tries to support his wife (Michelle Williams), and daughters. However, the urge to make the shower better and better ultimately gets in the way of both his personal and family life.
Barnum knows exactly what he is looking for. He scouts several individuals who he believes are perfect for the show. Each and everyone of them, a spark or magic that completes the circus. His show includes; bearded lady, Lettie (Keala Settle), and ‘the shortest man in the world’, Tom Thumb (Sam Humphrey). Also, a partner in need (or to help his succeed)Phillip Carlyle (Zac Efron).
The performers are part of a close family and stick together despite being ridiculed by the public. They are frequently humiliated and often labelled as 'freaks'. This brings a lot of emotion to the film. It encourages a lot of positivity in that it helps promote individuality and equality.
As a musical, The Greatest Showman comes packed with musical numbers. It features a number of brilliant vocal performers including the likes of Jackman, Settle, Efron and Zendaya (who plays a trapeze artist and pretty much most of the cast). The songs themselves are very moving, through joy or sadness. Many of the songs will also have your feet tapping to the beat! At points, you'll find yourself wanting to join in with the group!
Music is a powerful instrument which can often be emotive. The composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, who also worked on the music for La La Land, and Trolls, hit the mark. The songs were outstanding and often bought a tear to the eye.
From the beautiful ballroom-esque dances of Jackman and Williams to the group dances by the circus family, the film was not short of magical moments. The camera angles were also spot on - from the beautifully shot symmetrical aerial shots to the moving steady cam shots.
Already nominated for three Golden Globes, The Greatest Showman is sure to be a hit with everyone. It is almost certain that it'll leave you feeling emotionally drained. On the more positive side, it may even inspire people to spread a little Christmas joy and happiness!
Inspired by the legend of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), The Greatest Showman follows Barnum in a pursuit to piece together a dream-like show.
The film follows the businessman as he desperately tries to support his wife (Michelle Williams), and daughters. However, the urge to make the shower better and better ultimately gets in the way of both his personal and family life.
Barnum knows exactly what he is looking for. He scouts several individuals who he believes are perfect for the show. Each and everyone of them, a spark or magic that completes the circus. His show includes; bearded lady, Lettie (Keala Settle), and ‘the shortest man in the world’, Tom Thumb (Sam Humphrey). Also, a partner in need (or to help his succeed)Phillip Carlyle (Zac Efron).
The performers are part of a close family and stick together despite being ridiculed by the public. They are frequently humiliated and often labelled as 'freaks'. This brings a lot of emotion to the film. It encourages a lot of positivity in that it helps promote individuality and equality.
As a musical, The Greatest Showman comes packed with musical numbers. It features a number of brilliant vocal performers including the likes of Jackman, Settle, Efron and Zendaya (who plays a trapeze artist and pretty much most of the cast). The songs themselves are very moving, through joy or sadness. Many of the songs will also have your feet tapping to the beat! At points, you'll find yourself wanting to join in with the group!
Music is a powerful instrument which can often be emotive. The composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, who also worked on the music for La La Land, and Trolls, hit the mark. The songs were outstanding and often bought a tear to the eye.
From the beautiful ballroom-esque dances of Jackman and Williams to the group dances by the circus family, the film was not short of magical moments. The camera angles were also spot on - from the beautifully shot symmetrical aerial shots to the moving steady cam shots.
Already nominated for three Golden Globes, The Greatest Showman is sure to be a hit with everyone. It is almost certain that it'll leave you feeling emotionally drained. On the more positive side, it may even inspire people to spread a little Christmas joy and happiness!