Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated The Sweeney (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Nick Love’s take on the ’70s TV cop show of the same name packs every bit a hard knuckled punch as you would expect it to. The director of such films as The Football Factory and The Business even manages to stay clear of Danny Dyer and cast a slick and talented bunch of individuals, led by Ray Winstone.
Regan (Winstone) and Carter (Drew) are a pair of detectives on the flying squad, they don’t play nice or appreciate authority and when it comes to nicking thieves they go in armed with an array of unique weapons including pick axe handles. Quite simply put they “do the things you can only dream of”.
The plot is a little thin on the ground at times, and centres on former villain Allen (Paul Anderson) making a return to Regan’s patch, of which he doesn’t take too kindly when he has to let Allen go after having pulled him in for questioning in relation to a bank job that ends with an execution.
Regan himself is under the watchful eye of not just his boss Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) but internal watchdog Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) who has a greater reason than anyone to note Regan’s movements, with Regan sharing more than coffee with Lewis’s wife Nancy.
The action is well choreographed from the opening heist to a shootout through Trafalgar Square (of which annoyingly they can only hit innocent bystanders), the film’s climactic car chase is a bit of a let down however. After all that proceeded before it I was expecting something a little better than a blast around a caravan park.
The chemistry between Regan and Carter is good, a father and son styled relationship is pushed to breaking point at times, but beneath the hardened exterior lies a mutual respect for each other that is followed through to the very end.
Winstone looks battle weary and sounds more cockney than ever (if that could be at all possible), he’s like a bulldog that won’t let go of a bone or come when called. Drew is a fresh casting choice and I enjoyed his performance in Harry Brown, but here he seems to deliver his lines in a slow and laborious manner.
The sweeping landscape of London is painted in cold grey light, panels of sun laying across pavements and car windows trying to brighten the mood. It’s a violent mood, twinned with colourful dialogue that is more than to be expected. It’s a decent enough effort and certainly Love’s best film to date.
Regan (Winstone) and Carter (Drew) are a pair of detectives on the flying squad, they don’t play nice or appreciate authority and when it comes to nicking thieves they go in armed with an array of unique weapons including pick axe handles. Quite simply put they “do the things you can only dream of”.
The plot is a little thin on the ground at times, and centres on former villain Allen (Paul Anderson) making a return to Regan’s patch, of which he doesn’t take too kindly when he has to let Allen go after having pulled him in for questioning in relation to a bank job that ends with an execution.
Regan himself is under the watchful eye of not just his boss Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) but internal watchdog Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) who has a greater reason than anyone to note Regan’s movements, with Regan sharing more than coffee with Lewis’s wife Nancy.
The action is well choreographed from the opening heist to a shootout through Trafalgar Square (of which annoyingly they can only hit innocent bystanders), the film’s climactic car chase is a bit of a let down however. After all that proceeded before it I was expecting something a little better than a blast around a caravan park.
The chemistry between Regan and Carter is good, a father and son styled relationship is pushed to breaking point at times, but beneath the hardened exterior lies a mutual respect for each other that is followed through to the very end.
Winstone looks battle weary and sounds more cockney than ever (if that could be at all possible), he’s like a bulldog that won’t let go of a bone or come when called. Drew is a fresh casting choice and I enjoyed his performance in Harry Brown, but here he seems to deliver his lines in a slow and laborious manner.
The sweeping landscape of London is painted in cold grey light, panels of sun laying across pavements and car windows trying to brighten the mood. It’s a violent mood, twinned with colourful dialogue that is more than to be expected. It’s a decent enough effort and certainly Love’s best film to date.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based upon the best selling novel written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999. The film is directed by the author himself who makes the entire film follow the epistolary style novel very well. The film brings to light the struggles of an awkward adolescent boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson & the Olympians) and his struggles with trying to cope with the recent death of his best friend who has committed suicide and the not so recent death of his beloved aunt. While coping with both deaths Charlie also has to try his hardest to get through his first day of high school.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Death Race (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1975, legendary B-movie producer Roger Corman showed audiences a look at the near future with a biting film that deftly blended action and political commentary and satire. The film was “Death Race 2000” and starred David Carradine and featured a pre-“Rocky” Sylvester Stallone as bitter rivals in a brutal cross country race where finishing first was second only to the amount of death and carnage a driver left in their wake.
The film became a cult hit, and paved the way for films such as “Rollerball”, “Arena”, and countless other films that featured bloodlust sporting events for the masses a la Rome in the age of gladiators at the coliseum. Thirty-three years later, audiences are given the new and upgraded “Death Race” which benefits from a bigger budget with more carnage than the original film that inspired it ever dreamed of.
The film opens with an eerie warning of today’s troubled economic times, stating that the U.S.
economy collapses in 2012 and record unemployment and crime sweep the nation. With prisons overcrowded, corporations run correctional facilities for a profit and soon offer caged matches between inmates for the viewing pleasure of the nation. At first the matches are a huge success but soon lose their appeal to an audience that is eager for even bloodier sport.
In an effort to keep the cash flowing, the Death Race is created which pits convicts against one another in a brutal mix of speed, firepower, and death which in a few years surpasses even the Super Bowl as the most watched sporting event in the world.
Jason Statham stars as Jensen Ames, a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and faces the prospect of life in prison while his daughter is raised by strangers. With the Death Race losing some if its audience, its creator, and warden of the prison, Hennessey (Joan Allen), offers Jensen a solution to both of their problems. If Jensen will pose as the masked Frankenstein for the race and win, he will be granted his freedom. It is learned that the real Frankenstein has finally succumbed to the numerous injuries he has incurred racing, and rather than risk losing his vast legions of fans who drive the ratings, it is easier to replace him than lose him, especially since recent races without Frankenstein had not garnered the same ratings as his past races.
It is explained that should a driver win five death races, they will be set free. Since Frankenstein has won four races, all Jensen has to do is win the race and stay alive to earn his freedom. Jensen is faced with an menacing list of adversaries including the deadly Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson), who is the biggest threat to Jensen with an absolute hatred for Frankenstein. Gun Joe is a cold-blooded killer who wants nothing more than two more race wins to earn his freedom and will stop at nothing to get it.
Jensen is assisted by the talented Coach (Ian McShane), who dispenses wisdom while overseeing the crew that outfits Jensen’s suped up, armor-plated, and very heavily armed racer. Assigned to ride with Jensen as his Navigator is Case (Natalie Martinez), a female prisoner who, like many of her fellow navigators, sees the race as a chance to earn their freedom and other special perks which makes risking their lives a worthwhile endeavor.
As the race unfolds in three stages, Jensen is tasked with not only surviving the threats Machine Gun Joe and the other racers aim his way, but surviving the twisted scheme that has him in its grasp.
The action of the film is fast, brutal, and unforgiving and is easily the highlight of the film. Sadly there are plenty of scenes with stiff and uninspired characters, numerous plot holes and leaps of logic, and clichés that bog the film down.
Statham is his usual soft talking hard man, a character he has made a career out of playing in such films as the “Crank” and the “Transporter” series. But unlike those films, he is not given much material to work with here. Statham has done solid work in the past but Jensen is a paper thin character who never fully given a chance to develop nor be embraced by the audience.
The same is true for the rest of the cast, a talented ensemble left to languish in want of better material. The film is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson of the “Resident Evil” series who once again shows that he has an eye for action, but still has issues with pacing and unsympathetic characters. This is a shame as the premise of the film is solid, but unlike the original, lacks the social and political commentary needed to balance the carnage and mayhem.
With a little more time in shop and tinkering, this could have been a solid action film, instead it stalls at the starting line badly in need of a tune up.
The film became a cult hit, and paved the way for films such as “Rollerball”, “Arena”, and countless other films that featured bloodlust sporting events for the masses a la Rome in the age of gladiators at the coliseum. Thirty-three years later, audiences are given the new and upgraded “Death Race” which benefits from a bigger budget with more carnage than the original film that inspired it ever dreamed of.
The film opens with an eerie warning of today’s troubled economic times, stating that the U.S.
economy collapses in 2012 and record unemployment and crime sweep the nation. With prisons overcrowded, corporations run correctional facilities for a profit and soon offer caged matches between inmates for the viewing pleasure of the nation. At first the matches are a huge success but soon lose their appeal to an audience that is eager for even bloodier sport.
In an effort to keep the cash flowing, the Death Race is created which pits convicts against one another in a brutal mix of speed, firepower, and death which in a few years surpasses even the Super Bowl as the most watched sporting event in the world.
Jason Statham stars as Jensen Ames, a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and faces the prospect of life in prison while his daughter is raised by strangers. With the Death Race losing some if its audience, its creator, and warden of the prison, Hennessey (Joan Allen), offers Jensen a solution to both of their problems. If Jensen will pose as the masked Frankenstein for the race and win, he will be granted his freedom. It is learned that the real Frankenstein has finally succumbed to the numerous injuries he has incurred racing, and rather than risk losing his vast legions of fans who drive the ratings, it is easier to replace him than lose him, especially since recent races without Frankenstein had not garnered the same ratings as his past races.
It is explained that should a driver win five death races, they will be set free. Since Frankenstein has won four races, all Jensen has to do is win the race and stay alive to earn his freedom. Jensen is faced with an menacing list of adversaries including the deadly Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson), who is the biggest threat to Jensen with an absolute hatred for Frankenstein. Gun Joe is a cold-blooded killer who wants nothing more than two more race wins to earn his freedom and will stop at nothing to get it.
Jensen is assisted by the talented Coach (Ian McShane), who dispenses wisdom while overseeing the crew that outfits Jensen’s suped up, armor-plated, and very heavily armed racer. Assigned to ride with Jensen as his Navigator is Case (Natalie Martinez), a female prisoner who, like many of her fellow navigators, sees the race as a chance to earn their freedom and other special perks which makes risking their lives a worthwhile endeavor.
As the race unfolds in three stages, Jensen is tasked with not only surviving the threats Machine Gun Joe and the other racers aim his way, but surviving the twisted scheme that has him in its grasp.
The action of the film is fast, brutal, and unforgiving and is easily the highlight of the film. Sadly there are plenty of scenes with stiff and uninspired characters, numerous plot holes and leaps of logic, and clichés that bog the film down.
Statham is his usual soft talking hard man, a character he has made a career out of playing in such films as the “Crank” and the “Transporter” series. But unlike those films, he is not given much material to work with here. Statham has done solid work in the past but Jensen is a paper thin character who never fully given a chance to develop nor be embraced by the audience.
The same is true for the rest of the cast, a talented ensemble left to languish in want of better material. The film is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson of the “Resident Evil” series who once again shows that he has an eye for action, but still has issues with pacing and unsympathetic characters. This is a shame as the premise of the film is solid, but unlike the original, lacks the social and political commentary needed to balance the carnage and mayhem.
With a little more time in shop and tinkering, this could have been a solid action film, instead it stalls at the starting line badly in need of a tune up.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Pandorum (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A man wakes up in a sleeping chamber of some kind aboard a ship trudging its way through outer space. He has no recollection of who he is, what his mission is, or how long he's been on this vessel. After being awake for an hour, his memory begins to come back to him. He knows his name is Bower and he has a wife who may be on the ship somewhere. That's about the time the power surges begin and Lieutenant Payton wakes up. After realizing that they can't do much without having full power, Bower ventures off on his own to see if he can figure out what's causing these power surges and if anymore of the crew is awake. Bower doesn't get too far before he figures out two things: the first being that he only has about forty five minutes until the reactor goes into emergency shut down unless he can reach it in time from the other side of the ship. The second is that there's something else on board and whatever it is isn't human.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.