Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Stunts (1 more)
Practical Fire Effects and Explosions
Through The Fire And Flames
Stunning and tragic, Deepwater Horizon tells the story of the men on the oil rig that became the catalyst for the BP oil spill, one of the worst man made disasters in recent memory. Wahlberg, Russell and Malkovich are all great in their respective roles, but for me this film was slightly overrated. There was a lot of Oscar buzz surrounding it at the time of release and while I am a fan of Wahlberg, I don't see what he did in this movie to constitute the vast amount of praise he received. It is still a good movie and well made technically as well.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has anyone got an aspirin?
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone I told you this but I’m a little bit of a Transformers fanboy. As a child I had many of the series’ toys and adored the animated series. Heck, I even have an Optimus Prime bobblehead next to my bed.
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2 Guns (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Verdict: Easy to Watch Action Film
Story: 2 Guns starts as we see Bobby (Washington) & Stig (Wahlberg) planning their latest bank robbery before flashing back to one week earlier. We learn that Bobby has been undercover working for his handler Deb (Patton) in the DEA who are trying to take down Papi Greco (Olmos). We also find out Stig’s real motives as he is also undercover but with the military.
When the two find themselves being betrayed they must re-team up to take out the people that framed them making everything right with all the people they have stolen from.
2 Guns is an action comedy that is a real jumper because we start in the middle before going to beginning before getting to the end which automatically doesn’t help pull us in. We never really get the idea of how the two first meet and then when everything happens it all become overly complicated. If you want a simple action film this isn’t going to be for you but in the end this will need you to keep attention. Having too many people involved works for a flat out comedy but the overly serious side of certain moments pulls it all down.
Actor Review
Denzel Washington: Bobby is the undercover DEA agent that is trying to take down a drug cartel with his young partner Stig. When he gets betrayed by Stig he finds himself needing to make up for the crime only to find out he is involved in a bigger picture and having to work with Stig once more. Denzel is good in this role but it won’t be one you will remember.denzel
Mark Wahlberg: Stig is the young partner of Bobby, but he is secretly undercover for the military. When the money is stolen he learns the truth that only puts his own life at risk. He must re-team with Bobby to stop the people out to kill the both of them. Mark is good in this role which is what you would expect him to be in.stuif
Paula Patton: Deb is the former lover and connection with the DEA for Bobby, she has to supporting him whenever he gets the next part of the information. Paula is a solid supporting performance without doing too much.
Edward James Olmos: Papi Greco is the drug lord that both men are trying to take down. He has a reputation of being deadly that makes him one of the deadliest men after our leading men. Edward is solid but is just one of the main villains.
Support Cast: 2 Guns has a big supporting cast that all help with the final outcome of the film without being overly memorable or original.
Director Review: Baltasar Kormakur – Baltasar gives us a solid action film that could be enjoyed through the eyes of the audience.
Action: 2 Guns has a mix of action sequence which involves car chase, fights and fire fights.
Comedy: 2 Guns has good laughs between the two leads but otherwise doesn’t have much.
Crime: 2 Guns puts us through a crime world where we have a group of different men after the money.
Thriller: 2 Guns tries to keep us on the edge throughout but isn’t enough to pull us in.
Settings: 2 Guns has small town settings which are hard to keep on top of where we actually are.
Special Effects: 2 Guns has a couple of needs to effects but not the best when used.
Suggestion: 2 Guns is one for the action fans to try but otherwise you can miss it. (Try It)
Best Part: Car chase between Bobby and Stig.
Worst Part: Too many characters.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $61 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes
Tagline: 2 Guns, 1 Bank.
Overall: Overly complicated action film that doesn’t have enough to pull us in.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/24/2-guns-2013/
Story: 2 Guns starts as we see Bobby (Washington) & Stig (Wahlberg) planning their latest bank robbery before flashing back to one week earlier. We learn that Bobby has been undercover working for his handler Deb (Patton) in the DEA who are trying to take down Papi Greco (Olmos). We also find out Stig’s real motives as he is also undercover but with the military.
When the two find themselves being betrayed they must re-team up to take out the people that framed them making everything right with all the people they have stolen from.
2 Guns is an action comedy that is a real jumper because we start in the middle before going to beginning before getting to the end which automatically doesn’t help pull us in. We never really get the idea of how the two first meet and then when everything happens it all become overly complicated. If you want a simple action film this isn’t going to be for you but in the end this will need you to keep attention. Having too many people involved works for a flat out comedy but the overly serious side of certain moments pulls it all down.
Actor Review
Denzel Washington: Bobby is the undercover DEA agent that is trying to take down a drug cartel with his young partner Stig. When he gets betrayed by Stig he finds himself needing to make up for the crime only to find out he is involved in a bigger picture and having to work with Stig once more. Denzel is good in this role but it won’t be one you will remember.denzel
Mark Wahlberg: Stig is the young partner of Bobby, but he is secretly undercover for the military. When the money is stolen he learns the truth that only puts his own life at risk. He must re-team with Bobby to stop the people out to kill the both of them. Mark is good in this role which is what you would expect him to be in.stuif
Paula Patton: Deb is the former lover and connection with the DEA for Bobby, she has to supporting him whenever he gets the next part of the information. Paula is a solid supporting performance without doing too much.
Edward James Olmos: Papi Greco is the drug lord that both men are trying to take down. He has a reputation of being deadly that makes him one of the deadliest men after our leading men. Edward is solid but is just one of the main villains.
Support Cast: 2 Guns has a big supporting cast that all help with the final outcome of the film without being overly memorable or original.
Director Review: Baltasar Kormakur – Baltasar gives us a solid action film that could be enjoyed through the eyes of the audience.
Action: 2 Guns has a mix of action sequence which involves car chase, fights and fire fights.
Comedy: 2 Guns has good laughs between the two leads but otherwise doesn’t have much.
Crime: 2 Guns puts us through a crime world where we have a group of different men after the money.
Thriller: 2 Guns tries to keep us on the edge throughout but isn’t enough to pull us in.
Settings: 2 Guns has small town settings which are hard to keep on top of where we actually are.
Special Effects: 2 Guns has a couple of needs to effects but not the best when used.
Suggestion: 2 Guns is one for the action fans to try but otherwise you can miss it. (Try It)
Best Part: Car chase between Bobby and Stig.
Worst Part: Too many characters.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $61 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 49 Minutes
Tagline: 2 Guns, 1 Bank.
Overall: Overly complicated action film that doesn’t have enough to pull us in.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/24/2-guns-2013/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986