Search
Search results
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.
JT (287 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
With the internet flower business putting him into foreclosure, Earl Stone (Eastwood) must find alternative ways to make money. A man who was more dedicated to things growing in the ground than the family he neglected until it was too late he turns up at his granddaughter’s birthday party and doesn’t get a warm welcome.
Leaving with a business card and the offer to drive and deliver goods – no questions asked. Initially reluctant, Earl accepts the offer unbeknown to him the type of cargo he would be carrying.
Grizzled and back to doing what he does best, Clint Eastwood commands a screen presence like no other.
Eastwood’s grizzled charisma is not lost and he strikes up a friendly bond with some members of the cartel as his popularity rises. This puts him on the radar of DEA agents Bates (Bradley Cooper) and Treviño (Michael Peña) who piece together clues as to the identity of the mysterious driver known to the cartel as ‘El Tata’.
While there is a sufficient amount of tension, the film focuses on Earl desperately trying to reconnect with his family and make amends for all the times he wasn’t there – including his daughter’s wedding.
When we’re not in the passenger seat we’re following the DEA as they close in on ‘El Tata’. Changes in hierarchy within the cartel threaten to turn everything on its head and Earl is forced to make a number of decisions that will ultimately save him and his family.
The Mule has some heart-warming moments and is blessed with a strong cast. It’s not as gritty as Gran Torino but it worked for me.
Leaving with a business card and the offer to drive and deliver goods – no questions asked. Initially reluctant, Earl accepts the offer unbeknown to him the type of cargo he would be carrying.
Grizzled and back to doing what he does best, Clint Eastwood commands a screen presence like no other.
Eastwood’s grizzled charisma is not lost and he strikes up a friendly bond with some members of the cartel as his popularity rises. This puts him on the radar of DEA agents Bates (Bradley Cooper) and Treviño (Michael Peña) who piece together clues as to the identity of the mysterious driver known to the cartel as ‘El Tata’.
While there is a sufficient amount of tension, the film focuses on Earl desperately trying to reconnect with his family and make amends for all the times he wasn’t there – including his daughter’s wedding.
When we’re not in the passenger seat we’re following the DEA as they close in on ‘El Tata’. Changes in hierarchy within the cartel threaten to turn everything on its head and Earl is forced to make a number of decisions that will ultimately save him and his family.
The Mule has some heart-warming moments and is blessed with a strong cast. It’s not as gritty as Gran Torino but it worked for me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
This one seems to have received a very mixed reception among Trek fans, but I absolutely loved it when it first came out, giving it 4.5/5 in one of my early One Mann’s Movies reviews.
I find the pre-titles sequence on this one a real blast, both thrilling in content and enormously funny with the primitive stone age race trashing their previous relic in favour of their new Enterprise-shaped deity! And then the dramatic pseudo-blackmailing of Harewood, (an impressive Noel Clarke, when he was being given better roles that he is at the moment), to Michael Giacchino’s awesome “London Calling” music, is a truly memorable bit of movie-making.
The cast have all settled into their roles nicely. Chris Pine’s Kirk is still the arrogant ladies man (e.g. bedding twin aliens and chatting up the starfleet totty…. “Hi Ladies… Jim Kirk”), but learning the hard way that with great power comes at least a modicum of responsibility. He actually needs to act in this movie. And I find Scotty (Simon Pegg) slightly less grating in this outing (though his sidekick Keenser (Deep Roy) is still the annoying Jar Jar Binks of these films).
Benedict Cumberbatch adds great gravitas as the arch villain, and his announcement of his name was one of those “I am your father” movie-moments for me on first viewing.
It’s also the last screen appearance of Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime – indeed, his last movie appearance period. A nice and fitting way to bow out.
My rating here is a little lower than my previous OMM rating. It’s attempts to shoehorn-in scenes and dialogue from an earlier Trek movie are a misstep by the writers, and grate on repeat viewing. But it’s still a cracking episode in the Trek saga, and another of my personal favourites.
I find the pre-titles sequence on this one a real blast, both thrilling in content and enormously funny with the primitive stone age race trashing their previous relic in favour of their new Enterprise-shaped deity! And then the dramatic pseudo-blackmailing of Harewood, (an impressive Noel Clarke, when he was being given better roles that he is at the moment), to Michael Giacchino’s awesome “London Calling” music, is a truly memorable bit of movie-making.
The cast have all settled into their roles nicely. Chris Pine’s Kirk is still the arrogant ladies man (e.g. bedding twin aliens and chatting up the starfleet totty…. “Hi Ladies… Jim Kirk”), but learning the hard way that with great power comes at least a modicum of responsibility. He actually needs to act in this movie. And I find Scotty (Simon Pegg) slightly less grating in this outing (though his sidekick Keenser (Deep Roy) is still the annoying Jar Jar Binks of these films).
Benedict Cumberbatch adds great gravitas as the arch villain, and his announcement of his name was one of those “I am your father” movie-moments for me on first viewing.
It’s also the last screen appearance of Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime – indeed, his last movie appearance period. A nice and fitting way to bow out.
My rating here is a little lower than my previous OMM rating. It’s attempts to shoehorn-in scenes and dialogue from an earlier Trek movie are a misstep by the writers, and grate on repeat viewing. But it’s still a cracking episode in the Trek saga, and another of my personal favourites.
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.
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/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"He may have been your father boy but he wasn't your daddy"
The follow-up chapter to Guardians of the Galaxy and fifteenth instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is bigger in both scale & scope and continues the journey of this oddball gang of extra-terrestrial misfits while also bringing more figures from their past into the spotlight and although its vibrant use of colour palette & another tightly curated soundtrack are notable highlights, the film as a whole lacks the freshness of the original.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Jan 29, 2019 (Updated Jan 29, 2019)
A simple, enjoyable story
It appears there's just no stopping Clint Eastwood. Not only does he star in The Mule, a movie 'inspired by a true story', but he's also on producing and directing duties too. Just when you think you've seen him in his last ever role, he's back, 88 years old and still going strong!
Eastwood is Earl Stone, a highly successful horticulturist and Korean war veteran who we first meet in 2005. He arrives at a horticulture convention where he charms the ladies, engages in friendly competitive banter with other exhibitors and sneers at the guy promoting a new way of ordering flowers over the internet, before going on to win first prize for best bloom. But over the years all of this success has been at the expense of his family and while he's buying everyone in the bar a drink to celebrate his win, his daughter is getting married, wondering where her father is while her mother consoles her. A life on the road devoted to work has lost Earl the most important thing in life.
Shifting forward 12 years to 2017 and Earl has been forced to close up the flower business, blaming the damn internet for it all. He pays off his farm workers as best he can before heading off to his granddaughters house where she is holding a garden party. His presence only causes tension though - his daughter can't bear to be anywhere near him, while his ex wife takes the opportunity to once again give him a piece of her mind, disappointed that despite a lifelong devotion to work, he now can't even afford to help pay for his granddaughters upcoming wedding.
So when an offer comes his way, working as a mule for the cartel in return for good money, Earl accepts. An old man traveling, with no previous speeding tickets, is less likely to be stopped than the traditional Latinos they usually use, and Earl benefits by continuing his love of traveling the country in his trusty old truck. He tries the charming old man routine with the cartel members he comes into contact with on both sides of his deliveries, with varying degrees of success, but in-between he manages to just enjoy life - driving on the open road, singing along to the radio for hours on end. And the money certainly is good - Earl is able to buy a brand new truck, help pay for his granddaughters wedding and even help prevent a bar he's been going to for the last 50 or so years from closing. He gradually becomes more trusted within the cartel, becoming responsible for transporting increasingly larger quantities of drugs and drawing the attention of the more powerful cartel members. Attending big parties at their lavish houses, dancing with bikini clad girls and engaging in threesomes, this ninety something certainly is making the most of his twilight years! As power shifts within the cartel and Earl gets drawn deeper in, he finds himself having to decide between the cartel and his family. A decision with very different but serious consequences depending on which path he chooses.
All the while Earl is having his fun, the net is closing in on him in the form of a couple of DEA agents played by Bradley Cooper and Michael Peña. Under pressure to secure a bust from boss Lawrence Fishburne, they're getting closer and closer to capturing the cartels top mule. All three of these actors are seriously underused though in what are essentially pretty standard cop roles.
The Mule is a fairly simple movie with no big sense of drama, and certainly no Breaking Bad levels of cartel tension. However, I was never bored at any point and just found myself completely engrossed in it all, swept along by the genial nature of Earl and what was an enjoyable, sentimental story.
Eastwood is Earl Stone, a highly successful horticulturist and Korean war veteran who we first meet in 2005. He arrives at a horticulture convention where he charms the ladies, engages in friendly competitive banter with other exhibitors and sneers at the guy promoting a new way of ordering flowers over the internet, before going on to win first prize for best bloom. But over the years all of this success has been at the expense of his family and while he's buying everyone in the bar a drink to celebrate his win, his daughter is getting married, wondering where her father is while her mother consoles her. A life on the road devoted to work has lost Earl the most important thing in life.
Shifting forward 12 years to 2017 and Earl has been forced to close up the flower business, blaming the damn internet for it all. He pays off his farm workers as best he can before heading off to his granddaughters house where she is holding a garden party. His presence only causes tension though - his daughter can't bear to be anywhere near him, while his ex wife takes the opportunity to once again give him a piece of her mind, disappointed that despite a lifelong devotion to work, he now can't even afford to help pay for his granddaughters upcoming wedding.
So when an offer comes his way, working as a mule for the cartel in return for good money, Earl accepts. An old man traveling, with no previous speeding tickets, is less likely to be stopped than the traditional Latinos they usually use, and Earl benefits by continuing his love of traveling the country in his trusty old truck. He tries the charming old man routine with the cartel members he comes into contact with on both sides of his deliveries, with varying degrees of success, but in-between he manages to just enjoy life - driving on the open road, singing along to the radio for hours on end. And the money certainly is good - Earl is able to buy a brand new truck, help pay for his granddaughters wedding and even help prevent a bar he's been going to for the last 50 or so years from closing. He gradually becomes more trusted within the cartel, becoming responsible for transporting increasingly larger quantities of drugs and drawing the attention of the more powerful cartel members. Attending big parties at their lavish houses, dancing with bikini clad girls and engaging in threesomes, this ninety something certainly is making the most of his twilight years! As power shifts within the cartel and Earl gets drawn deeper in, he finds himself having to decide between the cartel and his family. A decision with very different but serious consequences depending on which path he chooses.
All the while Earl is having his fun, the net is closing in on him in the form of a couple of DEA agents played by Bradley Cooper and Michael Peña. Under pressure to secure a bust from boss Lawrence Fishburne, they're getting closer and closer to capturing the cartels top mule. All three of these actors are seriously underused though in what are essentially pretty standard cop roles.
The Mule is a fairly simple movie with no big sense of drama, and certainly no Breaking Bad levels of cartel tension. However, I was never bored at any point and just found myself completely engrossed in it all, swept along by the genial nature of Earl and what was an enjoyable, sentimental story.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost City (2022) in Movies
Jun 4, 2022
Charming...with Charismatic Leads
Like most folks, I barely gave THE LOST CITY any notice when it came and went in movie theaters earlier in 2022. This Sandra Bullock/Channing Tatum vehicle looked derivative from earlier films (most notably 1984’s ROMANCING THE STONE with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner) and it blew in and out of theaters with hardly a notice. But…sitting on an airplane…I ran across this flick and thought I’d give it a go.
And…I’m glad I did! For THE LOST CITY is a fun, charming film with 2 charismatic lead actors that you will want to go on this adventure with.
Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox and Adam Nee and Directed by Adam and Aaron Nee, THE LOST CITY tells the tale of Romance Novel Writer Loretta Sage (Bullock) who gets caught up in a treasure hunt when a crazed Mega-Millionaire (played with a spry twinkle in his eye by Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe) kidnaps Loretta for she had written something in her latest novel that he thinks is a clue to find the titular LOST CITY. Coming to her rescue? Her clue-less Fabio-like Cover Model (played with charming density by Channing Tatum). What could possibly go wrong?
With that sort of premise, the rest of the story is fairly predictable and pedestrian, so the weight of the entertainment value of this film falls squarely on the shoulders of the charm, charisma and chemistry of the 2 leads - and the Direction of the Nee’s.
And…I’m surprised (and happy) to state that these all come through with flying colors making THE LOST CITY a pretty enjoyable romp.
Let’s start with Bullock and Tatum. They are really looking like they are enjoying themselves - and each other. Bullock is no stranger to playing emotionally repressed intellectuals and Tatum is no stranger to playing dumb lugs…and they both embrace these stereotypes and had fun brining these two to life. Add to this the aforementioned performance of Radcliffe as the comedic villain and an extended cameo from a very recognizable “A-List” performer - and the charm and charisma meter in this film is off the hook.
The Nees, then, play to the strengths of these performers and move the film quickly from set piece to set piece, wisely only slowing down the action to let these performers play. The Directors show a light touch to this piece - and the audience is rewarded by this.
Not the type of movie that will cause focus groups to sit around and discuss it after, but if you are looking for a fun romp, summer action/comedy flick to sit on the couch some summer afternoon/evening with a bowl of popcorn and your favorite beverage, look no further than THE LOST CITY.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did! For THE LOST CITY is a fun, charming film with 2 charismatic lead actors that you will want to go on this adventure with.
Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox and Adam Nee and Directed by Adam and Aaron Nee, THE LOST CITY tells the tale of Romance Novel Writer Loretta Sage (Bullock) who gets caught up in a treasure hunt when a crazed Mega-Millionaire (played with a spry twinkle in his eye by Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe) kidnaps Loretta for she had written something in her latest novel that he thinks is a clue to find the titular LOST CITY. Coming to her rescue? Her clue-less Fabio-like Cover Model (played with charming density by Channing Tatum). What could possibly go wrong?
With that sort of premise, the rest of the story is fairly predictable and pedestrian, so the weight of the entertainment value of this film falls squarely on the shoulders of the charm, charisma and chemistry of the 2 leads - and the Direction of the Nee’s.
And…I’m surprised (and happy) to state that these all come through with flying colors making THE LOST CITY a pretty enjoyable romp.
Let’s start with Bullock and Tatum. They are really looking like they are enjoying themselves - and each other. Bullock is no stranger to playing emotionally repressed intellectuals and Tatum is no stranger to playing dumb lugs…and they both embrace these stereotypes and had fun brining these two to life. Add to this the aforementioned performance of Radcliffe as the comedic villain and an extended cameo from a very recognizable “A-List” performer - and the charm and charisma meter in this film is off the hook.
The Nees, then, play to the strengths of these performers and move the film quickly from set piece to set piece, wisely only slowing down the action to let these performers play. The Directors show a light touch to this piece - and the audience is rewarded by this.
Not the type of movie that will cause focus groups to sit around and discuss it after, but if you are looking for a fun romp, summer action/comedy flick to sit on the couch some summer afternoon/evening with a bowl of popcorn and your favorite beverage, look no further than THE LOST CITY.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
AMERICA! F**K YEAH!
The theme’s lyrics sum up this movie as well as any could have. Made in the midst of the War On Terror in 2004, a satire was needed and who better to provide one than the satirical genius’ Trey Parker and Matt Stone, best known for South Park. On the surface, this looks like a straight forward bawdy adult puppet parody, taking the mickey out of Bruckheimer’s blockbusters, Thunderbirds and the reputation being acquired by the U.S. over the past 30 years but reaching boiling point over the last decade, certainly in a post 9/11 world.But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miles Ahead (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve ever found yourself in a coffee shop, bookstore, or perhaps even a jazz club in the 21st century you can’t NOT have heard either the name ‘Miles Davis’, his music, or perhaps both. If you’ve been living under a rock your whole life and by some miracle you have a smartphone, computer, or a radio find a jazz station and it’s almost a sure thing you’ll here his music within minutes. The man is no myth although the man and his music are so legendary there is almost a mythical presence to him. He is one of the greats. No question. No argument.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.