Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Paycheck (2003) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the year 2007, memories can be erased almost as easily as they can be created. With corporate security being of top concern, this technology is in high demand for corporations who hire people to work on sensitive projects.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
As solid as the Rock
Who doesn’t love a good disaster movie? From Dante’s Peak to The Day After Tomorrow, there’s enough city-levelling action in the movie archives to terrify even the most urban of us.
The genre came to a head somewhat in 2009 with the overly cheesy 2012. Directed by Roland Emmerich, aka the disaster movie king, it was a huge box-office success but audiences were turned off by the idea of destroying the entire globe.
After a few years off, the genre returns with San Andreas. But can this earthquake-based blockbuster evoke memories of yesteryear’s disaster flicks?
Dwayne Johnson stars as Ray Gaines, a chief rescue officer with the LAFD and in typical The Rock style, manages to captivate the audience from beginning to end of this exceptionally cheesy yet surprisingly effective movie.
The beautiful Carla Gugino plays Ray’s estranged wife, Emma with Alexandra Daddario taking on the role of their daughter Blake. There’s even a small role for Kylie Minogue, though she is rather unnoticed here.
San Andreas follows the three central characters as they try to reunite with one another after a series of devastating earthquakes along the west coast of America, all of which are predicted by brilliant seismologist Lawrence – a wasted Paul Giamatti.
The film is visually stunning, but as with any in the genre, lacks a defined story with the characters being thrown from one amazing set piece to another. From the very beginning the audience is subjected to gargantuan action sequences including the much-marketed tsunami that acts as a placeholder for the film’s final act – it is absolutely mesmerising to watch.
Johnson proves time-and-time again that he is in the right business. Along with Schwarzenegger he is at his best in films where his brawn is needed the most and it’s certainly the case here. Surprisingly though, The Rock provides a rich emotional undertone due to a horrific past family incident.
Unfortunately, there is such a lack of originality in San Andreas’ story that it’s easy to signpost exactly what is going to happen before it actually does. The reason? Simply because it’s been done to death. Disaster flicks are very 90s with Dante’s Peak having a similar family unit and even in the noughties, The Day After Tomorrow featuring the well-worn reuniting with children plotline.
There are some clever touches however, parts of the film where you would expect generic clichés, it cleverly dangles a red herring and then moves the plot in a completely different direction.
It’s clear to see that disaster movies will always find their audience. Those not looking for a deep and meaningful story and a rollercoaster ride of special effects instead will find much to enjoy here.
Dwayne Johnson is superb in his role with the majority of the other characters falling by the wayside somewhat, and in the end, San Andreas proves to be a solid if not overly original experience.
It’s fair to say though, this film is more than worth the price of a cinema ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/31/as-solid-as-the-rock-san-andreas-review/
The genre came to a head somewhat in 2009 with the overly cheesy 2012. Directed by Roland Emmerich, aka the disaster movie king, it was a huge box-office success but audiences were turned off by the idea of destroying the entire globe.
After a few years off, the genre returns with San Andreas. But can this earthquake-based blockbuster evoke memories of yesteryear’s disaster flicks?
Dwayne Johnson stars as Ray Gaines, a chief rescue officer with the LAFD and in typical The Rock style, manages to captivate the audience from beginning to end of this exceptionally cheesy yet surprisingly effective movie.
The beautiful Carla Gugino plays Ray’s estranged wife, Emma with Alexandra Daddario taking on the role of their daughter Blake. There’s even a small role for Kylie Minogue, though she is rather unnoticed here.
San Andreas follows the three central characters as they try to reunite with one another after a series of devastating earthquakes along the west coast of America, all of which are predicted by brilliant seismologist Lawrence – a wasted Paul Giamatti.
The film is visually stunning, but as with any in the genre, lacks a defined story with the characters being thrown from one amazing set piece to another. From the very beginning the audience is subjected to gargantuan action sequences including the much-marketed tsunami that acts as a placeholder for the film’s final act – it is absolutely mesmerising to watch.
Johnson proves time-and-time again that he is in the right business. Along with Schwarzenegger he is at his best in films where his brawn is needed the most and it’s certainly the case here. Surprisingly though, The Rock provides a rich emotional undertone due to a horrific past family incident.
Unfortunately, there is such a lack of originality in San Andreas’ story that it’s easy to signpost exactly what is going to happen before it actually does. The reason? Simply because it’s been done to death. Disaster flicks are very 90s with Dante’s Peak having a similar family unit and even in the noughties, The Day After Tomorrow featuring the well-worn reuniting with children plotline.
There are some clever touches however, parts of the film where you would expect generic clichés, it cleverly dangles a red herring and then moves the plot in a completely different direction.
It’s clear to see that disaster movies will always find their audience. Those not looking for a deep and meaningful story and a rollercoaster ride of special effects instead will find much to enjoy here.
Dwayne Johnson is superb in his role with the majority of the other characters falling by the wayside somewhat, and in the end, San Andreas proves to be a solid if not overly original experience.
It’s fair to say though, this film is more than worth the price of a cinema ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/31/as-solid-as-the-rock-san-andreas-review/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Ides of March (2011) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019 (Updated Sep 13, 2019)
Characters – Stephen Meyers is the ambitious campaign manager who is wildly considered one of the best in the business with his ability to handle the media and remain calm through any situation. His life is turned upside when he becomes a pawn in the dirty tactics involved in an election race and he will need to roll his sleeves up to fight back. Governor Mike Morris is the man Stephen is working for, he is the underdog in the race and seems like the perfect candidate, only he has secrets which could ruin his campaign. Paul is Stephen’s boss, the man who took a chance on Stephen, he values loyalty over anything else and doesn’t always trust the people around him. Tom Duffy is the campaign manager on the opposite side, he does like the ideas Stephen is playing and wants him on his team, he is the first one to play him into his own game. Molly is the intern on the staff that could bring down the whole campaign with her secret. Ida is a journalist that will do anything for a story which will get her on the front page.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Village in the Woods (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Stephen Meyers is the ambitious campaign manager who is wildly considered one of the best in the business with his ability to handle the media and remain calm through any situation. His life is turned upside when he becomes a pawn in the dirty tactics involved in an election race and he will need to roll his sleeves up to fight back. Governor Mike Morris is the man Stephen is working for, he is the underdog in the race and seems like the perfect candidate, only he has secrets which could ruin his campaign. Paul is Stephen’s boss, the man who took a chance on Stephen, he values loyalty over anything else and doesn’t always trust the people around him. Tom Duffy is the campaign manager on the opposite side, he does like the ideas Stephen is playing and wants him on his team, he is the first one to play him into his own game. Molly is the intern on the staff that could bring down the whole campaign with her secret. Ida is a journalist that will do anything for a story which will get her on the front page.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cinderella Man (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the late 1920’s Jim Braddock was a boxer with a future. After many wins, he was poised to take his place as one of the greatest boxers of his time. Things took a bad turn for Jim in 1929 when he first lost a 15 round decision to Tommy Loughran, and then lost everything in the Stock Market Crash.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Straight Outta Compton (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The moment I heard they were making a film about N.W.A., I knew I had to see it. Like many, I didn’t listen to their music during their height of their popularity. Unlike many, I am willing to admit that. But it doesn’t mean that their music didn’t influence me in significant ways when I was in my teens. So naturally, I was excited about this movie. I only wish it would have lived up to my expectations.
Straight Outta Compton tells the story of N.W.A.’s formation, but it’s more than just that. It tells of the trials and tribulations the members of the group went through to become the icons they were. It tells of both the struggle with their oppressors, as well as each other. We start the film in 1986 with an introduction to the three main guys that everyone knows: Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkings) and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.). They soon form Ruthless records putting out their first single, which gets the attention of Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), their future manager. The movie then tells of their rise to stardom, and ultimate falling out, all the way through to the passing of Eazy-E.
Straight Outta Compton sets out to do a lot of things, some of which it doesn’t get exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is good. It just felt… unnatural at times. The actors themselves did a great job portraying the real-life people they were representing, but I don’t think they had the chemistry as an ensemble. I noticed it really early on in the movie, when Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at Dre’ aunt’s house. The flow of the conversation just didn’t feel comfortable. It didn’t feel like the natural conversations I had with my friends when I was around the same age, as they were putting clear distance (time) between each of the character’s lines, just so you can make out what they were saying. And Hawkings and Jackson, Jr. just seemed really awkward in delivering their lines to each other. I know that this is needed often in movies, but I have seen similar scenes in other movies where I didn’t have this feeling.
There were also many things that the movie put into your face, but then didn’t really finish telling you what it was about, or make you believe in the connection. For example, the movie starts with Dre having a girl and baby, and you see her for all of 10 seconds, and then you see her a little later when she is leaving him. Dre also has very minimal time with his brother in the beginning of the film, again a short time later they interact for a few moments on screen (over the phone), and then there is supposed to be a moving scene where Dre finds out his brother was killed. I say supposed to be because as with the film where Dre’s girl left him, you are supposed to feel something for the character here, but there wasn’t enough for you to go on. There wasn’t the emotional connection to the relationship between Dre and his girl/brother for you to feel connected to the movie and character. These are just a few examples, another could be a menacing threat to Jerry Heller at his home, but the movie never really wraps back around to it. Most people are supposed to know, or maybe you are supposed to infer from the plotline at the time, but it seemed a little abrupt to me. Now, I hear that the running time of this film, 147 minutes, is actually a far cry from the original 210 minutes. This could explain a lot of where I felt the film just kind of failed at follow through. Hopefully we get to see this on the home release.
Ultimately, this was a great movie. It was amazing to sit in the theater and listen to people sing along with the iconic songs that were released not only from the super group themselves, but even from Eazy-E, Ice Cube and others. Plus, there were many great easter eggs throughout the film, including appearances of the characters Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Warren G, Suge Knight and many others. There was plenty of humor, but still managing to portray the struggle they went through well. One of things I was worried about was O’Shea Jackson, Jr. I originally thought they only cast him as his father because of the looks, but he really did hold his own. I definitely see a future in acting, and possibly in music too, just like his father.
Should you go see it in theaters? If you are a super fan, then definitely. Even if you are not, definitely check it out as it tells a great story about what was considered at one point the most dangerous group in music. This is definitely one that will be added to my collection upon home release, especially if there is an uncut version.
Straight Outta Compton tells the story of N.W.A.’s formation, but it’s more than just that. It tells of the trials and tribulations the members of the group went through to become the icons they were. It tells of both the struggle with their oppressors, as well as each other. We start the film in 1986 with an introduction to the three main guys that everyone knows: Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkings) and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.). They soon form Ruthless records putting out their first single, which gets the attention of Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), their future manager. The movie then tells of their rise to stardom, and ultimate falling out, all the way through to the passing of Eazy-E.
Straight Outta Compton sets out to do a lot of things, some of which it doesn’t get exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is good. It just felt… unnatural at times. The actors themselves did a great job portraying the real-life people they were representing, but I don’t think they had the chemistry as an ensemble. I noticed it really early on in the movie, when Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at Dre’ aunt’s house. The flow of the conversation just didn’t feel comfortable. It didn’t feel like the natural conversations I had with my friends when I was around the same age, as they were putting clear distance (time) between each of the character’s lines, just so you can make out what they were saying. And Hawkings and Jackson, Jr. just seemed really awkward in delivering their lines to each other. I know that this is needed often in movies, but I have seen similar scenes in other movies where I didn’t have this feeling.
There were also many things that the movie put into your face, but then didn’t really finish telling you what it was about, or make you believe in the connection. For example, the movie starts with Dre having a girl and baby, and you see her for all of 10 seconds, and then you see her a little later when she is leaving him. Dre also has very minimal time with his brother in the beginning of the film, again a short time later they interact for a few moments on screen (over the phone), and then there is supposed to be a moving scene where Dre finds out his brother was killed. I say supposed to be because as with the film where Dre’s girl left him, you are supposed to feel something for the character here, but there wasn’t enough for you to go on. There wasn’t the emotional connection to the relationship between Dre and his girl/brother for you to feel connected to the movie and character. These are just a few examples, another could be a menacing threat to Jerry Heller at his home, but the movie never really wraps back around to it. Most people are supposed to know, or maybe you are supposed to infer from the plotline at the time, but it seemed a little abrupt to me. Now, I hear that the running time of this film, 147 minutes, is actually a far cry from the original 210 minutes. This could explain a lot of where I felt the film just kind of failed at follow through. Hopefully we get to see this on the home release.
Ultimately, this was a great movie. It was amazing to sit in the theater and listen to people sing along with the iconic songs that were released not only from the super group themselves, but even from Eazy-E, Ice Cube and others. Plus, there were many great easter eggs throughout the film, including appearances of the characters Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Warren G, Suge Knight and many others. There was plenty of humor, but still managing to portray the struggle they went through well. One of things I was worried about was O’Shea Jackson, Jr. I originally thought they only cast him as his father because of the looks, but he really did hold his own. I definitely see a future in acting, and possibly in music too, just like his father.
Should you go see it in theaters? If you are a super fan, then definitely. Even if you are not, definitely check it out as it tells a great story about what was considered at one point the most dangerous group in music. This is definitely one that will be added to my collection upon home release, especially if there is an uncut version.