Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Blackbeard in TV
May 28, 2017
Good cast (1 more)
Decent for a TV miniseries/movie
Not entirely accurate (2 more)
The characters and boats are far too clean
TV effects (or lack of) might spoil some scenes
Somewhat entertaining
So I was on the search for some more Pirate movies at my local DVD stores, in hopes of finding something with the effects of Pirates of the Caribbean, but a more serious plot like that of the Black Sails series. Something that feels more like how the golden age of piracy would seem, not quite as quirky and humorous as the Disney films, although I cannot fault them for they are some of my favourite movies. It was on my search, that I came across this, and my initial thoughts were that whilst it looked cheap, it could be an entertaining film. As it turns out, I discovered this was a TV miniseries, merged into roughly a 162 minute film.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Grindhouse (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Back in the 70’s cheaply made independent films often came into their own. The studio released films were drawing smaller audiences’ thanks in large part to the arrival of color television and a greater variety of entertainment that people could view in their homes.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Twenty-six years ago, “Fright Night” premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Crude: check. Offensive: check. It’s Borat… what do you expect?
Kazakh news-hound Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is in trouble with his country's rulers after his first 'moviefilm' brought shame and disrepute to the country. Under threat of death he is sent on a mission to deliver Johnny - a monkey, but the most popular celebrity in Kazakhstan - as a gift to Donald Trump.
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Brad Pitt has become one of Hollywood’s best loved actors over the years and it isn’t difficult to see why. His chiselled good looks, slick blonde hair and quiet confidence have all ensured he is never short of work. Here, he teams up with director Marc Forster who helmed the disappointing James Bond sequel, Quantum of Solace, in the latest zombie film to hit the screens; World War Z, but is it any good?
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the dark of night, a young man’s life is about to be forever changed. Young Bruce Wayne, son of wealthy industrialist Dr. Thomas Wayne (Linus Roache), is about to be orphaned in a random act of street violence.
The act will forever scar the younger Wayne, and will install and fuel a dark fire to stop crime and corruption wherever they may be. Fast forward years later and Bruce (Christian Bale), is interned in and Asian prison as a result of his desire to stop crime and an unfortunate series of events that made him flee Gotham City to find himself. Hope arrives one day in the form of a visitor named Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), who arranges not only to free Bruce, but to train him for his destiny.
High atop a rocky, snow-covered peak, Bruce undergoes rigorous physical and mental training to hone his body and mind into the ultimate tool to combat crime. As time passes, Bruce eventually is ready to go out into the world. That is until an unexpected situation arises that forces him to decide which path he wishes to select.
The aftermath of this decision has Bruce returning home to Gotham City, where he is again under the care of the trusted family servant Alfred (Michael Caine), who informs him that crime and corruption is rampant in Gotham because the crime leader Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), has many members of the police force and judicial system under his influence.
While touring his father’s company, Bruce meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), who makes all manners of high-end experimental military weaponry and armor available to Bruce. Inspired, Bruce begins to craft his alter ego Batman, and takes to the nights to disrupt Falcone and the criminal activities in Gotham.
Unknown to Bruce/Batman, an evil villain known as the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), is plotting to destroy Gotham, and with Batman being wanted by the police as a vigilante his attempts to cleanse the city are hindered as Bruce/Batman must fight a war on different fronts.
For most films this would be more than enough plot to carry a summer action film, but for Batman Begins, it is only the setup as the depth of the story is surpassed only by the depth of the intensity and emotion of the film as this is not Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher’s campy takes on the tale of the Dark Knight.
Director Christopher Nolan takes the gloves off and shows that his triumphant work in “Memento” was not a fluke. He has crafted a complex, dark, and emotional film that is more of a drama than a comic book caper. Bale does a masterful job portraying the angst and anger of his character without ever being hammy or over the top. He portrays Wayne as a very normal, yet disturbed soul, who clearly has a method to his madness and is not a shallow once dimensional character. When Bruce is not out fighting crime, he is not above cracking jokes, squiring the ladies about town, and spending time with long time friend (and the one who got away) Rachael Dawes (Katie Holmes).
The film takes many twists and never gets sappy as far too many comic based films do. In fact, the intensity of the film keeps going up until the town literally explodes into frenzy of violence and chaos. Parents should note that this Batman is a very intense film filled with dark images and as such may be too intense for younger viewers as this is a film that is aimed towards a more mature audience.
As I sat through the films nearly two and a half hour running time, I was captivated as the film holds your attention throughout, and is filled with great performances and action. The chase scene with the new Batmobile is one of the best car chase sequences in recent memory and the action scenes move with a crisp and steady pacing. Bale, as I mentioned, does great work, but so do Neeson, Caine and Gary Oldman in a supporting role as Police Officer Gordon. They take supporting characters and infuse them with a touch of humanity that enables them to come across as real people rather than the thin constructs that are far too often passed on as characters in films of this type.
The only real quibble I had with the film, and it is very minor, would be that Holmes was not given a chance to show more to her character other than the duality of the damsel in distress and the passionate Assistant D.A. Her scenes with Bale seem to lack the spark and chemistry of someone who is supposed to have been a close friend of Bruce since they were children.
That being said, the mature nature and gripping and deep storyline, as well as the standout performances and action, make this film a true classic and rivals “Spider-Man” as the best and most faithful adaptation of a comic book.
The act will forever scar the younger Wayne, and will install and fuel a dark fire to stop crime and corruption wherever they may be. Fast forward years later and Bruce (Christian Bale), is interned in and Asian prison as a result of his desire to stop crime and an unfortunate series of events that made him flee Gotham City to find himself. Hope arrives one day in the form of a visitor named Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), who arranges not only to free Bruce, but to train him for his destiny.
High atop a rocky, snow-covered peak, Bruce undergoes rigorous physical and mental training to hone his body and mind into the ultimate tool to combat crime. As time passes, Bruce eventually is ready to go out into the world. That is until an unexpected situation arises that forces him to decide which path he wishes to select.
The aftermath of this decision has Bruce returning home to Gotham City, where he is again under the care of the trusted family servant Alfred (Michael Caine), who informs him that crime and corruption is rampant in Gotham because the crime leader Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), has many members of the police force and judicial system under his influence.
While touring his father’s company, Bruce meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), who makes all manners of high-end experimental military weaponry and armor available to Bruce. Inspired, Bruce begins to craft his alter ego Batman, and takes to the nights to disrupt Falcone and the criminal activities in Gotham.
Unknown to Bruce/Batman, an evil villain known as the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), is plotting to destroy Gotham, and with Batman being wanted by the police as a vigilante his attempts to cleanse the city are hindered as Bruce/Batman must fight a war on different fronts.
For most films this would be more than enough plot to carry a summer action film, but for Batman Begins, it is only the setup as the depth of the story is surpassed only by the depth of the intensity and emotion of the film as this is not Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher’s campy takes on the tale of the Dark Knight.
Director Christopher Nolan takes the gloves off and shows that his triumphant work in “Memento” was not a fluke. He has crafted a complex, dark, and emotional film that is more of a drama than a comic book caper. Bale does a masterful job portraying the angst and anger of his character without ever being hammy or over the top. He portrays Wayne as a very normal, yet disturbed soul, who clearly has a method to his madness and is not a shallow once dimensional character. When Bruce is not out fighting crime, he is not above cracking jokes, squiring the ladies about town, and spending time with long time friend (and the one who got away) Rachael Dawes (Katie Holmes).
The film takes many twists and never gets sappy as far too many comic based films do. In fact, the intensity of the film keeps going up until the town literally explodes into frenzy of violence and chaos. Parents should note that this Batman is a very intense film filled with dark images and as such may be too intense for younger viewers as this is a film that is aimed towards a more mature audience.
As I sat through the films nearly two and a half hour running time, I was captivated as the film holds your attention throughout, and is filled with great performances and action. The chase scene with the new Batmobile is one of the best car chase sequences in recent memory and the action scenes move with a crisp and steady pacing. Bale, as I mentioned, does great work, but so do Neeson, Caine and Gary Oldman in a supporting role as Police Officer Gordon. They take supporting characters and infuse them with a touch of humanity that enables them to come across as real people rather than the thin constructs that are far too often passed on as characters in films of this type.
The only real quibble I had with the film, and it is very minor, would be that Holmes was not given a chance to show more to her character other than the duality of the damsel in distress and the passionate Assistant D.A. Her scenes with Bale seem to lack the spark and chemistry of someone who is supposed to have been a close friend of Bruce since they were children.
That being said, the mature nature and gripping and deep storyline, as well as the standout performances and action, make this film a true classic and rivals “Spider-Man” as the best and most faithful adaptation of a comic book.