Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Dark Crimes starts when Tadek (Carrey) still investigating the murder of a police officer, gets a new lead when Kozlov (Csokas) writes a new book which has an eerily similarity to the murder, leading him to take a dangerous road investigating the murder, which includes challenge the former girlfriend Kasia (Gainsbourg).
The investigation has plenty of ties to the secret sex club known as the cage, where the men get to do whatever they want to the women, Tadek must put his professional and person life on the line to get to the bottom of this investigations.
Thoughts on Dark Crimes
Characters – Tadek is a police officer, he is preparing for retirement (I think) only he wants to solve one final case, which involves the murder of a fellow officer, he goes down dangerous paths which put his career on the line, his marriage on the line, hoping to find the answers. Kozlov is an author that has written a book that sounds too similar to the unsolved case, he becomes the target of the investigation because of his history with the known sex club. Kasia is a former worker in the club, she does have a connection to Kozlov and the victim.
Performances – Jim Carrey is an actor that I like seeing him doing serious roles, sadly, this is one of his worst performances in a long time, he can keep the accent up jumping around all over the place. Marton Csokas usually does well in film, but because the character isn’t very interesting, he struggles to keep our attention. Charlotte Gainsbourg disappoints too, she does everything we expect her to without making the impact.
Story – The story follows a detective that is investigating the murder of a fellow officer that could have found the confession inside a novel, which leads him to target the author in search for the truth. The problem here is we get slow moving conversations which don’t go anywhere, we don’t get into the evidence of the case, it just seems to be watching one man starting to go too far in his search. The case doesn’t seem long enough to make feature film story either.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows the investigation into the murder of a police officer which might be opened up again, it never feels urgent either.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the club could be easily accessed without needing to be too far away.
Scene of the Movie – Nothing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dragging story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the worst crime stories because it just never feels like the case is that important.
Overall: Just a drag.
The investigation has plenty of ties to the secret sex club known as the cage, where the men get to do whatever they want to the women, Tadek must put his professional and person life on the line to get to the bottom of this investigations.
Thoughts on Dark Crimes
Characters – Tadek is a police officer, he is preparing for retirement (I think) only he wants to solve one final case, which involves the murder of a fellow officer, he goes down dangerous paths which put his career on the line, his marriage on the line, hoping to find the answers. Kozlov is an author that has written a book that sounds too similar to the unsolved case, he becomes the target of the investigation because of his history with the known sex club. Kasia is a former worker in the club, she does have a connection to Kozlov and the victim.
Performances – Jim Carrey is an actor that I like seeing him doing serious roles, sadly, this is one of his worst performances in a long time, he can keep the accent up jumping around all over the place. Marton Csokas usually does well in film, but because the character isn’t very interesting, he struggles to keep our attention. Charlotte Gainsbourg disappoints too, she does everything we expect her to without making the impact.
Story – The story follows a detective that is investigating the murder of a fellow officer that could have found the confession inside a novel, which leads him to target the author in search for the truth. The problem here is we get slow moving conversations which don’t go anywhere, we don’t get into the evidence of the case, it just seems to be watching one man starting to go too far in his search. The case doesn’t seem long enough to make feature film story either.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows the investigation into the murder of a police officer which might be opened up again, it never feels urgent either.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the club could be easily accessed without needing to be too far away.
Scene of the Movie – Nothing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dragging story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the worst crime stories because it just never feels like the case is that important.
Overall: Just a drag.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Too Good To Be Real: A Novel in Books
Jul 22, 2021
A very meta romantic comedy
Julia is a writer desperate to save her job. She's tired of posting nothing but quizzes and lists. So she pitches an article to her boss in an attempt to save her job: a new resort that's letting its guests live out their romantic comedy dreams via role playing. Julia doesn't believe in love, of course, but she'll play along if it means keeping her job. But when she and her two best friends show up, she meets a handsome man by the lake via the quintessential meet-cute: a humorous seagull incident. She thinks Luke is taking part in the rom-com experience, but he's actually one of the event planners, along with his best friend and sister. Luke decides to take part in the experience in order to impress a reviewer arriving. Sparks fly between the two, but can their love be real when no one is being honest about who they are?
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Lost in the Sun (2015) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – John is a crook, he seems to be freshly out of prison needing to payback debts for protection in prison, he offers to take Louis to his grandparents and starts using him to help pay of the debts, showing him the life of crime, it is clear early on that he does have a connection to Louis, we are left to see what that connection is. Louis is the teenager that has been left orphaned when his mother dies, he reluctantly joins John in the cross-country trip where he gets to learn certain things he wouldn’t have before, including how to drive and how to shoot a gun. We do only meet characters along the way, some help and most are the people they are robbing.
Performances – Josh Duhamel is good in the leading role, it is one of his better performances as she shows how conflicted his character is and just how desperate he is to clear his debts, while trying to guide the teenager. Josh Wiggins is great in his role of the film, he gets to show moments of grief and moments of moving on with life as he is the one that needs to learn the biggest life lessons. The rest of the cast are solid without needing to do that much.
Story – The story here comes down to one man trying to make up for his own mistakes in life by helping a young teenage boy across country to live with his grandparents only along the way we see him teach him life lessons which could one day prepare him for the real-world. This gives us a chance to see a redemption story while also giving us a coming-of-age chapter in Louis’s life, this isn’t going to break any ground in the genre and does everything it needs to do for the characters. We do get moments of questioning moments of what Louis is forced to do and for the most we don’t get enough time to look at the crimes that have left John where he is in life.
Action – The action in the film is simple, we get a couple of weak chases and robberies, they are easy to watch and barely break into a sweat.
Settings – The film takes us across America, we don’t hit any landmarks which just shows us small town after small town or open roads.
Scene of the Movie – The final moment.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Boys don’t just want to drive cars and shoot guns.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple coming of age film, it checks the boxes well without doing anything we haven’t seen before.
Overall: Coming-of-age 101
Performances – Josh Duhamel is good in the leading role, it is one of his better performances as she shows how conflicted his character is and just how desperate he is to clear his debts, while trying to guide the teenager. Josh Wiggins is great in his role of the film, he gets to show moments of grief and moments of moving on with life as he is the one that needs to learn the biggest life lessons. The rest of the cast are solid without needing to do that much.
Story – The story here comes down to one man trying to make up for his own mistakes in life by helping a young teenage boy across country to live with his grandparents only along the way we see him teach him life lessons which could one day prepare him for the real-world. This gives us a chance to see a redemption story while also giving us a coming-of-age chapter in Louis’s life, this isn’t going to break any ground in the genre and does everything it needs to do for the characters. We do get moments of questioning moments of what Louis is forced to do and for the most we don’t get enough time to look at the crimes that have left John where he is in life.
Action – The action in the film is simple, we get a couple of weak chases and robberies, they are easy to watch and barely break into a sweat.
Settings – The film takes us across America, we don’t hit any landmarks which just shows us small town after small town or open roads.
Scene of the Movie – The final moment.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Boys don’t just want to drive cars and shoot guns.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple coming of age film, it checks the boxes well without doing anything we haven’t seen before.
Overall: Coming-of-age 101
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Our Kind of Traitor (2016) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Characters – Perry is a university professor, he is trying to make amends with his wife on a romantic holiday, he reluctantly gets involved in the information trade with his good nature being used by both sides. Gail is the lawyer wife of Perry, she has become distant from him while still loving him and does question his decision to help Dima. Dima is the Russian mafia handling the accounts, but he wants out to help his own children become safe, he uses his connection with Perry to get MI6 involved in the truth. Hector is the MI6 agent that is willing to work with Dima for the information in exchange for the family, he does have his own grudge with the man they are trying to take down too.
Performances – The performances through the film show us just what Le Carre does with his characters, he gives them good moments, without making them stand out. McGregor is good, but you feel a younger up and comer would have been perfect here, Harris is good and doesn’t put a foot wrong, while Skarsgard enjoys his role, shady but loyal. Damian Lewis brings back his true English role which at times does feel weird knowing how often he has been an American character recently.
Story – The story comes from a John Le Carre novel, so instantly we know we are going to get a thriller that keeps us guessing on what everyone’s motivation will be. The idea that a normal couple get mixed up in the middle of an international information exchange is different and does work for the film because it helps us stay on edge thinking and wondering if they do have a bigger involvement. The story does feel like that one moment to make it great is missing, as everything does end up feeling just normal and good only.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows a criminal looking for a safe way out of the life for his family in exchange for bringing down the mafia’s dealings in London.
Settings – The film splits the settings between London, for the deals, Morocco for the exchanges and the final location for the next chapter of the lives, they work because they show how this world would operate.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It lacks the edge of your seat style of Le Carre novels have given us.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid thriller even if it lacks that final factor to make it one of the best ones, it does the by the book material well, but never develops the characters enough to understand the situation they put themselves in.
Overall: Simple thriller.
Performances – The performances through the film show us just what Le Carre does with his characters, he gives them good moments, without making them stand out. McGregor is good, but you feel a younger up and comer would have been perfect here, Harris is good and doesn’t put a foot wrong, while Skarsgard enjoys his role, shady but loyal. Damian Lewis brings back his true English role which at times does feel weird knowing how often he has been an American character recently.
Story – The story comes from a John Le Carre novel, so instantly we know we are going to get a thriller that keeps us guessing on what everyone’s motivation will be. The idea that a normal couple get mixed up in the middle of an international information exchange is different and does work for the film because it helps us stay on edge thinking and wondering if they do have a bigger involvement. The story does feel like that one moment to make it great is missing, as everything does end up feeling just normal and good only.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows a criminal looking for a safe way out of the life for his family in exchange for bringing down the mafia’s dealings in London.
Settings – The film splits the settings between London, for the deals, Morocco for the exchanges and the final location for the next chapter of the lives, they work because they show how this world would operate.
Scene of the Movie – The escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It lacks the edge of your seat style of Le Carre novels have given us.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid thriller even if it lacks that final factor to make it one of the best ones, it does the by the book material well, but never develops the characters enough to understand the situation they put themselves in.
Overall: Simple thriller.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tusk (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
To legions of his many fans, writer, director, producer, and podcaster Kevin Smith is a man fanboys find easy to root for. His films have become pop-culture gold to comic book, science fiction, and general geekdom fans the world over. Smith has built a career on independent films with characters that are as real as they are raw and raunchy. The crude nature of his jokes often put him in a “love them or hate them” category for many critics as it is definitely not a style that is for the masses. That being said, the films are witty, honest, and most times relatable, no matter how bad the situations and the characters become. Recently, Smith took a detour to the darker side with his film “Red State” that looked at a group of kids who became the victims of a fanatical cult leader and his followers.
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
Oldify - Old Face App
Entertainment and Photo & Video
App
See your face when it’s old with Oldify, a fun camera booth app that lets turns your iPhone or...
Unmasked: A Memoir
Book
“You have the luck of Croesus on stilts (as my Auntie Vi would have said) if you’ve had the sort...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Eye In The Sky (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An exceptional look at warfare
Warfare is incredibly hard to depict well on screen. The brutality of conflict as well as the accuracy of technologies used is something very rarely achieved in the cinema due to the constant need to turn a profit and please audiences.
After American Sniper rocked the early part of 2015, there were numerous films in the genre greenlit soon after. Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky is one. But is it as good as American Sniper? And, more importantly, does it show an accurate depiction of modern conflict?
Eye in the Sky follows the tough choices that have to be made by politicians and military personnel in the fight against modern-day terrorism. Starring an arresting Helen Mirren as Colonel Powell, who leads a group of soldiers in their efforts to thwart a terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
Alongside her for the journey is the late Alan Rickman, in one of his final screen roles, as General Benson – the man who has to please the more political side of the divide. The film also stars Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul as a US drone pilot, tasked with delivering a fatal strike on a terrorist cell.
Eye in the Sky, despite its ridiculous name, is one of the freshest and most involving war films in recent times. This is even more astounding considering director Gavin Hood’s recent CV includes the lambasted X-Men Origins: Wolverine and commercial failure Ender’s Game.
This is a taut and well-shot action thriller with an unusually emotional heart at its centre. Our characters continuously grapple with the inevitable “collateral damage” that comes with firing a missile from 22,000ft in the air and we, as the audience share in each of their difficult decisions.
Helen Mirren provides one of her best performances in years and the wonderful Alan Rickman gives us yet more proof of what made him such an exceptional actor – you simply cannot take your eyes of the screen when he is on it. Aaron Paul is also brilliant, with the heart-breaking decisions he is forced to make reflected in his facial expressions. His tears speak louder than any script could ever rustle up.
It’s true that the action is kept to a minimum; this is no Michael Bay picture, but the boardroom setting and confines of the drone pilot room are more than a match for needless explosions as it all feels grounded in reality – despite the fact that some of the intelligence equipment isn’t in the field yet.
Overall, Eye in the Sky is an exceptional piece of film-making with real emotional punch. This is something normally reserved for other genres but it pays of well in this highly intelligent and fantastically acted thriller. Unfortunately, as is the case with many movies in between release schedules of bigger features, it will no doubt slip under the radar slightly.
That’s a shame, as there’s something truly special here and there’s no doubt it is one of the best films released in the last twelve months.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/23/an-exceptional-look-at-warfare-eye-in-the-sky-review/
After American Sniper rocked the early part of 2015, there were numerous films in the genre greenlit soon after. Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky is one. But is it as good as American Sniper? And, more importantly, does it show an accurate depiction of modern conflict?
Eye in the Sky follows the tough choices that have to be made by politicians and military personnel in the fight against modern-day terrorism. Starring an arresting Helen Mirren as Colonel Powell, who leads a group of soldiers in their efforts to thwart a terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
Alongside her for the journey is the late Alan Rickman, in one of his final screen roles, as General Benson – the man who has to please the more political side of the divide. The film also stars Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul as a US drone pilot, tasked with delivering a fatal strike on a terrorist cell.
Eye in the Sky, despite its ridiculous name, is one of the freshest and most involving war films in recent times. This is even more astounding considering director Gavin Hood’s recent CV includes the lambasted X-Men Origins: Wolverine and commercial failure Ender’s Game.
This is a taut and well-shot action thriller with an unusually emotional heart at its centre. Our characters continuously grapple with the inevitable “collateral damage” that comes with firing a missile from 22,000ft in the air and we, as the audience share in each of their difficult decisions.
Helen Mirren provides one of her best performances in years and the wonderful Alan Rickman gives us yet more proof of what made him such an exceptional actor – you simply cannot take your eyes of the screen when he is on it. Aaron Paul is also brilliant, with the heart-breaking decisions he is forced to make reflected in his facial expressions. His tears speak louder than any script could ever rustle up.
It’s true that the action is kept to a minimum; this is no Michael Bay picture, but the boardroom setting and confines of the drone pilot room are more than a match for needless explosions as it all feels grounded in reality – despite the fact that some of the intelligence equipment isn’t in the field yet.
Overall, Eye in the Sky is an exceptional piece of film-making with real emotional punch. This is something normally reserved for other genres but it pays of well in this highly intelligent and fantastically acted thriller. Unfortunately, as is the case with many movies in between release schedules of bigger features, it will no doubt slip under the radar slightly.
That’s a shame, as there’s something truly special here and there’s no doubt it is one of the best films released in the last twelve months.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/23/an-exceptional-look-at-warfare-eye-in-the-sky-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A movie with more than a whiff of cordite about it
As I write this, I’m really struggling to evaluate whether the latest film of Ben Wheatley (“High Rise”) is a masterpiece or just pulp trash. It’s certainly a brave and highly distinctive venture, with that you can’t argue.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.