Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Seven (1995) in Movies
Nov 18, 2020
A timeless crime thriller
Film #2 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Se7en
Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.
And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.
The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.
This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.
However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.
Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.
And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.
The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.
This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.
However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.
Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into the screen with wildly low expectations for Venom, nothing in the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. In the run up to me going there were more and more reviews appearing saying that it was bad, not that I read any of them. So many people just felt the need to put it right in the title... yes, yes, but much more obvious than mine!!
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Some Like It Hot (1959) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The dilemma of an obsessed movie-goer is choosing what films to watch when things clash. It really wasn't a tough choice when an Unlimited Screening was announced for the same evening as Some Like It Hot. The screening was only two days before release, I could wait. It wasn't big enough to miss the chance to see this classic on the big screen.
It's been a long time since I've seen this and I'm always a little cautious about revisiting old favourites as my taste in films gradually changes. But luckily this one hadn't lost any of it's magic. It's a simple idea that's taken to the next level by a talented cast and wonderful script.
One of the reasons I think I love old movies so much is that they had a love of musical elements. I was always a fan of The Andrews Sisters, the Road movies, and of course musicals. A jazzy little number kept you buzzing and always knocked the entertainment value up a notch. This is no exception. Everyone loves some sultry Monroe be-dooping on screen.
There are lots of snippets online about the production and it give you a fantastic background. Monroe was terrible at remembering even that basic lines and they ended up writing lots of them down to hide on set, but some how that still didn't help to reduce the number of takes they needed to do. Curtis' prim and proper Josephine actually came about from him being uncomfortable dressed as a woman. Lemmon gave up being taught how to walk in heels because he wanted to look like a man wearing heels for the part. Despite it being in Monroe's contract that all her films had to be in colour they agreed to film in black and white because the make-up Curtis and Lemmon were wearing made them looking slightly green on camera... that's just some of it. It's well worth having a look around for other tidbits.
It's amazing to think that the flawless looking make-up in black and white looks completely different in colour. Let's face it, they both turn out looking pretty good dressed as women.
As a double act Curtis and Lemmon are wonderful together, both and Joe & Jerry and Josephine and Daphne. The dialogue, timing and the way they interact physically is all brilliant. One of my favourite bits is very early on when they realise the "funeral" is about to get raided. It's cool, calm and coordinated, not a beat is missed and the whole sequence puts a smile on my face.
I went to log this film on Letterboxd and noticed that I'd rated it as a four star film. Accurate, I thought to myself. But as I started to write notes for this review I realised I was sorely under appreciating it. How could I not give this five stars? Everything it does, it nails.
Being really picky, I'm not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I never feel that she stood up on her own, it tends to be the effort of everyone else that makes her shine better. That being said, she still has that massive impact on the screen and a naivety that needs to be there for some of the humour to work. Curtis dropping the dead pan line about water polo wouldn't have worked with any other type of character.
If I were to list the best bits of the film here I might as well just narrate you the whole movie. There are so many fun bits but one of my top ones is the engagement. That childlike glee is just so much fun that you're rooting for it to work too.
What you should do
There's no way that you should go through life without seeing Some Like It Hot. While there are a couple of moments that feel dated the humour is so good it would be a travesty to miss it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Tough choice... Curtis' agility when climbing the front of the hotel, Lemmon's dance moves, or the ability to make a cocktail in a hot water bottle... decisions decisions!
It's been a long time since I've seen this and I'm always a little cautious about revisiting old favourites as my taste in films gradually changes. But luckily this one hadn't lost any of it's magic. It's a simple idea that's taken to the next level by a talented cast and wonderful script.
One of the reasons I think I love old movies so much is that they had a love of musical elements. I was always a fan of The Andrews Sisters, the Road movies, and of course musicals. A jazzy little number kept you buzzing and always knocked the entertainment value up a notch. This is no exception. Everyone loves some sultry Monroe be-dooping on screen.
There are lots of snippets online about the production and it give you a fantastic background. Monroe was terrible at remembering even that basic lines and they ended up writing lots of them down to hide on set, but some how that still didn't help to reduce the number of takes they needed to do. Curtis' prim and proper Josephine actually came about from him being uncomfortable dressed as a woman. Lemmon gave up being taught how to walk in heels because he wanted to look like a man wearing heels for the part. Despite it being in Monroe's contract that all her films had to be in colour they agreed to film in black and white because the make-up Curtis and Lemmon were wearing made them looking slightly green on camera... that's just some of it. It's well worth having a look around for other tidbits.
It's amazing to think that the flawless looking make-up in black and white looks completely different in colour. Let's face it, they both turn out looking pretty good dressed as women.
As a double act Curtis and Lemmon are wonderful together, both and Joe & Jerry and Josephine and Daphne. The dialogue, timing and the way they interact physically is all brilliant. One of my favourite bits is very early on when they realise the "funeral" is about to get raided. It's cool, calm and coordinated, not a beat is missed and the whole sequence puts a smile on my face.
I went to log this film on Letterboxd and noticed that I'd rated it as a four star film. Accurate, I thought to myself. But as I started to write notes for this review I realised I was sorely under appreciating it. How could I not give this five stars? Everything it does, it nails.
Being really picky, I'm not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I never feel that she stood up on her own, it tends to be the effort of everyone else that makes her shine better. That being said, she still has that massive impact on the screen and a naivety that needs to be there for some of the humour to work. Curtis dropping the dead pan line about water polo wouldn't have worked with any other type of character.
If I were to list the best bits of the film here I might as well just narrate you the whole movie. There are so many fun bits but one of my top ones is the engagement. That childlike glee is just so much fun that you're rooting for it to work too.
What you should do
There's no way that you should go through life without seeing Some Like It Hot. While there are a couple of moments that feel dated the humour is so good it would be a travesty to miss it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Tough choice... Curtis' agility when climbing the front of the hotel, Lemmon's dance moves, or the ability to make a cocktail in a hot water bottle... decisions decisions!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
Not the feel good hit I was expecting
Blinded by the Light is based on a memoir by Guardian journalist Sarfaz Manzoor (who is also one of the screenwriters on the movie) and is directed by Gurinder Chadha (also one of the screenwriters), who had a hit back in 2002 with Bend it like Beckham. I remember seeing the trailer for this before watching Rocketman recently and it certainly looked like a pretty enjoyable 80s based British movie, set to a soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen songs. Unfortunately though, this turned out to be just a fairly average and generic drama, enjoyable at times, but kind of just meandering along and not really working for me.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Enter the Void (Soudain le vide) (2010) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
WOW!
Not many modern filmmakers garner such a reputation for being controversial and are well deserved. Lars von Trier and Ari Aster come to mind, but I am sure there are others. They pull no punches with their work, so most provoke extreme reactions either love or hate. Maybe also appreciate the art form or what they are trying to say, but do not enjoy the extreme sex or violence or shock value from many of their scenes.
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.