Search
Search results
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.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Funny, Heartwarming, And Beautifully Animated
Toy Story 4 is a 2019 CG/comedy movie directed by Josh Cooley and based on screenplay written by Andrew Stanton, and Stephany Folsom; along with John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Valerie LaPointe, and Martin Hynes. It was produced by Picard Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Tony Hale, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele and Keanu Reeves.
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Hustle (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The Hustle stars Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson as a pair of con artists who extract money from men using their feminine wiles. Hathaway and Wilson have a great chemistry on screen and some of the physical humor had me laughing so hard that my eyes were watering from laughter. Other times the jokes fell so flat I cringed, especially early on with the lampooning of male behavior so over the top that it seemed like an SNL bit rather than a part of a story they were trying to tell. It takes the movie a while to get its feet underneath it and really start running, but it does eventually get there.
What I didn’t realize going into this movie was that it is actually a reboot of the Steve Martin, Michael Caine and the late Glenne Headly classic, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. As soon as you realize this you know exactly how the story will go down to the last punch line. That is a real bummer for fans of the original because you know one of the biggest end reveals about half way through the movie.
Knowing the twist at the end doesn’t ruin the movie, but it did take a lot of the fun out of it and I wish they changed the twist to outsmart the audience who knew they were following the Dirty Rotten Scoundrels playbook.
Rebel Wilson plays off Anne Hathaway really well, I’d actually like to see them do something original together in the future. The chemistry reminds me of David Spade and Chris Farley with Hathaway playing the straight man and Wilson playing the physical comedian. The best parts of this movie are when these two are facing off in a scene trying to outdo one another.
I can’t say this enough; I really wish they changed the twist at the end so that I could have enjoyed it more because I really wanted to like it. Those who have never seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels may enjoy it more than I did. The lady behind me was so shocked with the twist reveal at the end that her gasp was audible across the theater, so obviously not everyone has seen the original.
Because of the big laughs I did have while watching this movie I can’t say I hated the movie, it was definitely good for some laughs. But the con of the movie is to get you into the theater without you realizing that it’s just a replica reboot of a classic.
What I didn’t realize going into this movie was that it is actually a reboot of the Steve Martin, Michael Caine and the late Glenne Headly classic, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. As soon as you realize this you know exactly how the story will go down to the last punch line. That is a real bummer for fans of the original because you know one of the biggest end reveals about half way through the movie.
Knowing the twist at the end doesn’t ruin the movie, but it did take a lot of the fun out of it and I wish they changed the twist to outsmart the audience who knew they were following the Dirty Rotten Scoundrels playbook.
Rebel Wilson plays off Anne Hathaway really well, I’d actually like to see them do something original together in the future. The chemistry reminds me of David Spade and Chris Farley with Hathaway playing the straight man and Wilson playing the physical comedian. The best parts of this movie are when these two are facing off in a scene trying to outdo one another.
I can’t say this enough; I really wish they changed the twist at the end so that I could have enjoyed it more because I really wanted to like it. Those who have never seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels may enjoy it more than I did. The lady behind me was so shocked with the twist reveal at the end that her gasp was audible across the theater, so obviously not everyone has seen the original.
Because of the big laughs I did have while watching this movie I can’t say I hated the movie, it was definitely good for some laughs. But the con of the movie is to get you into the theater without you realizing that it’s just a replica reboot of a classic.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatchu gonna do? Whatchu gonna do when they come for you? Bad Boys premiered in 1995, the sequel way back in 2003. Bad Boys for Life, the third movie in the franchise takes us back to Miami, where Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) have been partners in the force for over 25 years.
Marcus certainly is feeling his age, having been married with grown kids, and Mike is still ready to go and take down criminals with his own style. Marcus is eyeing retirement and his partner Lowrey, does not want any part of it. They are going by the motto of “Bad Boys for Life”. Captain Howard (Joe Pantoliano) is still running the precinct and a new tactical team has been established to carry out quick responses. This small team is led by Rita (Paola Nunez) who has had some history with Mike Lowrey.
Rita’s team is comprised by Kelly (Vanessa Hudgens) the team badass. Rafe (Charles Melton) the resident smart ass who immediately chafes Mike’s hide and Dorn (Alexander Ludwig), the IT specialist and gentle giant. It is as if the recruiter got Rafe and Dorn from an Abercrombie catalogue. They are AMMO, the rapid response team assigned to take on immediate issues that affect Miami.
The current problem is an assassin taking out members of Miami’s law enforcement community. We learn that there is a Mexican drug cartel looking for retribution and it is led by Isabel Aretas, the widow of the Kingpin (Kate de Castillo, playing the character with such seething hatred) and her son Armando (Jacob Scipio)
Bad Boys 3 is co-directed by the team of Adil and Bilall, who have worked together on film for the past ten years. Taking over the franchise from Michael Bay. There are plenty of chases and gunfights in the movie. The action is fantastic, the rapport between Marcus and Lowrey is just plain hilarious. The chemistry of their partnership is still there, and their timing is on point. I did not expect to laugh so hard or so much.
The movie took a minute to find it’s pacing at the beginning. Once the story was set, the timing was quick, but steady and the humor came on one after another. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it had all the elements that I would have expected from a Bad Boys sequel: a logical story line, action, humor, eye candy and car chases. I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants to lose themselves in an action film with a large side order of humor.
Marcus certainly is feeling his age, having been married with grown kids, and Mike is still ready to go and take down criminals with his own style. Marcus is eyeing retirement and his partner Lowrey, does not want any part of it. They are going by the motto of “Bad Boys for Life”. Captain Howard (Joe Pantoliano) is still running the precinct and a new tactical team has been established to carry out quick responses. This small team is led by Rita (Paola Nunez) who has had some history with Mike Lowrey.
Rita’s team is comprised by Kelly (Vanessa Hudgens) the team badass. Rafe (Charles Melton) the resident smart ass who immediately chafes Mike’s hide and Dorn (Alexander Ludwig), the IT specialist and gentle giant. It is as if the recruiter got Rafe and Dorn from an Abercrombie catalogue. They are AMMO, the rapid response team assigned to take on immediate issues that affect Miami.
The current problem is an assassin taking out members of Miami’s law enforcement community. We learn that there is a Mexican drug cartel looking for retribution and it is led by Isabel Aretas, the widow of the Kingpin (Kate de Castillo, playing the character with such seething hatred) and her son Armando (Jacob Scipio)
Bad Boys 3 is co-directed by the team of Adil and Bilall, who have worked together on film for the past ten years. Taking over the franchise from Michael Bay. There are plenty of chases and gunfights in the movie. The action is fantastic, the rapport between Marcus and Lowrey is just plain hilarious. The chemistry of their partnership is still there, and their timing is on point. I did not expect to laugh so hard or so much.
The movie took a minute to find it’s pacing at the beginning. Once the story was set, the timing was quick, but steady and the humor came on one after another. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it had all the elements that I would have expected from a Bad Boys sequel: a logical story line, action, humor, eye candy and car chases. I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants to lose themselves in an action film with a large side order of humor.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
It's says a lot about this third entry into the Bad Boys franchise, when there's been a 17 year gap between movies, and it still manages to be this good!
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peaks and Valleys (2020) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Acting of the two leads (2 more)
Cinematography of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness
Script and direction both good
Two strangers forced to over-winter in Alaskan wilderness
In “Peaks and Valleys”, Jack (Kevin T. Bennett) is living as a recluse in a remote cabin in Alaska. His solitude is rudely interrupted by a plane which drops a naked, trussed-up and drugged-up girl into his lake. Traumatised by her experiences, the girl (Bailey, played by Kitty Mahoney) is unwilling to trust the man. But trust him she must, since they are in the Alaskan wilderness and Jack tells her that the supply plane might not come for a couple of months.
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
The first Bad Boys movie came out in 1995, with the second arriving in 2003. So, 17 years on and these Miami bad boys are sure to be showing signs of age, following a career of fast cars and extreme action. Thankfully, Bad Boys for Life acknowledges that fact, even if we do get to hear the phrase "we're getting too old for this shit", or variations of, on many occasions throughout. Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) is becoming a grandfather, keen to move on from being a bad boy in order to try and become a "good man" instead. Meanwhile, Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) isn't quite there just yet, continuing to try and live his shallow bad boy life at full throttle, dying his greying goatee beard in denial. When Mike becomes the target for a badass Mexican drug-lord (Kate del Castillo) and her ruthless son, his past comes back to haunt him and both boys have no choice but to get back together in order to take down the bad guys one last time.
OK, full disclaimer - I haven't seen Bad Boys and I haven't seen Bad Boys II. I probably wouldn't have been concerned about seeing this third installment either if I'm honest, but I found myself with a couple of hours to kill in London over the weekend, with Bad Boys for Life being literally the only movie that I hadn't seen which was showing at a convenient time. General opinion online so far seems to be that this is a fairly decent entry into the franchise though, and not necessarily something where you needed to have seen the previous movies in order to enjoy, so I decided to give it a shot. Consequently, there may be things about this movie that fans of the series will be happy to see or that they will be disappointed to see, but which I can't really comment on. I was heading into this like it was a standalone movie.
So, with Burnett trying to adjust to a life of relaxation at home, getting under his wife's feet in the process, it's up to Lowrey to tackle the assassin threat. However, due to him being one of their targets, he's forced to join the AMMO squad as a consultant. AMMO are Miami PD's elite team, utilising technology to track and monitor high-profile criminals, and the majority of the team are all considerably younger than Lowrey too. To them, Lowrey is just the old man that would rather shoot first and ask questions later, and it's not long before a frustrated Lowrey is disobeying orders, taking charge and introducing the team to some of his Bad Boy ways.
As far as buddy cop action movies go, Bad Boys for Life was an absolute blast. I've seen reviewers negatively describe the impact that Michael Bay had on the last Bad Boys movie with his over the top action mayhem style of film making. However, this time around, new co-directors Bilall Fallah and Adil El Arbi are in charge (although Bay does have a small cameo in the movie!) and while the action is still frenetic at times, it's also a lot more coherent too. The pacing in Bad Boys for Life felt spot on and with a good mix of humour, some decent villains and some fast paced inventive action that you can actually follow, it all makes for an enjoyable ride.
OK, full disclaimer - I haven't seen Bad Boys and I haven't seen Bad Boys II. I probably wouldn't have been concerned about seeing this third installment either if I'm honest, but I found myself with a couple of hours to kill in London over the weekend, with Bad Boys for Life being literally the only movie that I hadn't seen which was showing at a convenient time. General opinion online so far seems to be that this is a fairly decent entry into the franchise though, and not necessarily something where you needed to have seen the previous movies in order to enjoy, so I decided to give it a shot. Consequently, there may be things about this movie that fans of the series will be happy to see or that they will be disappointed to see, but which I can't really comment on. I was heading into this like it was a standalone movie.
So, with Burnett trying to adjust to a life of relaxation at home, getting under his wife's feet in the process, it's up to Lowrey to tackle the assassin threat. However, due to him being one of their targets, he's forced to join the AMMO squad as a consultant. AMMO are Miami PD's elite team, utilising technology to track and monitor high-profile criminals, and the majority of the team are all considerably younger than Lowrey too. To them, Lowrey is just the old man that would rather shoot first and ask questions later, and it's not long before a frustrated Lowrey is disobeying orders, taking charge and introducing the team to some of his Bad Boy ways.
As far as buddy cop action movies go, Bad Boys for Life was an absolute blast. I've seen reviewers negatively describe the impact that Michael Bay had on the last Bad Boys movie with his over the top action mayhem style of film making. However, this time around, new co-directors Bilall Fallah and Adil El Arbi are in charge (although Bay does have a small cameo in the movie!) and while the action is still frenetic at times, it's also a lot more coherent too. The pacing in Bad Boys for Life felt spot on and with a good mix of humour, some decent villains and some fast paced inventive action that you can actually follow, it all makes for an enjoyable ride.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.