Search
JT (287 KP) rated Triple Frontier (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Triple Frontier is the latest straight-to-Netflix blockbuster that manages to hit the right notes at the right times. More often than not Netflix originals aren’t anything to get excited about, although occasionally there is a diamond in the rough.
Triple Frontier turns from taught heist thriller to survivalistic drama all in the space of a few acts, and if you stick with it then you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Tracking down South American drug lord Gabriel Martin Lorea (Reynaldo Gallegos) has been an obsession for Santiago “Pope” Garcia (Oscar Isaac), but at last the intel has paid off.
Garcia has not only discovered where Lorea is located but where he is hiding his huge fortune. Rather than turn the intel over to the authorities he keeps the information for himself, sharing it with a group of ex-Special Forces buddies. The plan is simple, undergo surveillance of the compound and then pull off a daring heist where they will all walk away with a life changing amount of cash.
There is a lot of unrest initially, as all come to understand the complications as well as severity of what could happen if it all goes tits up, which of course, there is every chance it will do.
Garcia is joined by Tom “Redfly” Davis (Ben Affleck), brothers William “Ironhead” Miller (Charlie Hunnam) and Ben Miller (Garrett Hedlund), and Francisco “Catfish” Morales (Pedro Pascal).
The is a solid amount of brotherly love as well as chemistry which works incredibly well on screen. Back stories are to be believed and there is an air of intensity that hangs over the group, never quite knowing which way it is all going to go. The action is tight and well executed and the suspense is pretty much kept up all the way through the run time. If you’re a fan of the heist genre which avoids the slick, humorous elements of an Ocean’s Eleven, then this one is for you.
Triple Frontier turns from taught heist thriller to survivalistic drama all in the space of a few acts, and if you stick with it then you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Tracking down South American drug lord Gabriel Martin Lorea (Reynaldo Gallegos) has been an obsession for Santiago “Pope” Garcia (Oscar Isaac), but at last the intel has paid off.
Garcia has not only discovered where Lorea is located but where he is hiding his huge fortune. Rather than turn the intel over to the authorities he keeps the information for himself, sharing it with a group of ex-Special Forces buddies. The plan is simple, undergo surveillance of the compound and then pull off a daring heist where they will all walk away with a life changing amount of cash.
There is a lot of unrest initially, as all come to understand the complications as well as severity of what could happen if it all goes tits up, which of course, there is every chance it will do.
Garcia is joined by Tom “Redfly” Davis (Ben Affleck), brothers William “Ironhead” Miller (Charlie Hunnam) and Ben Miller (Garrett Hedlund), and Francisco “Catfish” Morales (Pedro Pascal).
The is a solid amount of brotherly love as well as chemistry which works incredibly well on screen. Back stories are to be believed and there is an air of intensity that hangs over the group, never quite knowing which way it is all going to go. The action is tight and well executed and the suspense is pretty much kept up all the way through the run time. If you’re a fan of the heist genre which avoids the slick, humorous elements of an Ocean’s Eleven, then this one is for you.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 29, 2020 (Updated Dec 29, 2020)
I was lucky enough to see this in theaters with my 'rents. I do not agree with Warner Bros decision to release same day on HBO Max, so I initially wasn't going to see it, but my dad bought the tickets.
The story itself isn't bad, but it is wayyyyy too long. I have an issue with how long the first section of the film was, taking place on Themiscyra. It didn't really add to the story, other than showing the gold armor that's worn later. I think it was just an excuse to have Robin Wright and crew in the film.
Kristen Wiig, of course, as horrible as every. Normally, I avoid everything with her like the plague, she's not funny, nor is she a good actress. She was highly annoying, and the CGI at the end was SO BAD. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for bad CGI for these delayed films, they had an extra six months to make sure it looked good.
I loved that Chris Pine returned in WW84, I'm always up for some Chris Pine in movies. I did find Diana's unwillingness to give him up initially a little off for the character. It just wasn't Wonder Woman, and coming from a woman writer, it was weak.
The climatic speech was not the strongest, not unlike the climatic speech in the first film (Seriously, the improper grammar during the climactic speech in WW haunts me). It was just kind of lame.
Now, good ol' Pedro Pascal, I liked his character overall. I wish they'd have shown more of the little snippets of his history prior to the climax, i.e. being made fun of due to being Hispanic, changing his name to something anglo. That was the only point in the film where I actually felt something.
I did like it in general, and I would watch it again. It just wasn't as strong as I wanted.
The story itself isn't bad, but it is wayyyyy too long. I have an issue with how long the first section of the film was, taking place on Themiscyra. It didn't really add to the story, other than showing the gold armor that's worn later. I think it was just an excuse to have Robin Wright and crew in the film.
Kristen Wiig, of course, as horrible as every. Normally, I avoid everything with her like the plague, she's not funny, nor is she a good actress. She was highly annoying, and the CGI at the end was SO BAD. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for bad CGI for these delayed films, they had an extra six months to make sure it looked good.
I loved that Chris Pine returned in WW84, I'm always up for some Chris Pine in movies. I did find Diana's unwillingness to give him up initially a little off for the character. It just wasn't Wonder Woman, and coming from a woman writer, it was weak.
The climatic speech was not the strongest, not unlike the climatic speech in the first film (Seriously, the improper grammar during the climactic speech in WW haunts me). It was just kind of lame.
Now, good ol' Pedro Pascal, I liked his character overall. I wish they'd have shown more of the little snippets of his history prior to the climax, i.e. being made fun of due to being Hispanic, changing his name to something anglo. That was the only point in the film where I actually felt something.
I did like it in general, and I would watch it again. It just wasn't as strong as I wanted.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Triple Frontier (2019) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Choices and Consequences - 7/10
Triple Frontier is a 2019 action/thriller movie directed by J.C. Chandor. The screenplay was written by J.C. Chandor and Mark Boal with story also by Mark Boal. Starring Ben Affleck, Oscar Isaac, Charlie Hunnam, Garrett Hedlund, and Pedro Pascal.
In Columbia fighting drug crime, Santiago "Pope" Garcia (Oscar Isaac), has been working for 3 years. Finally the moment he's been waiting for occurs, when his informant, a woman named Yovanna (Adria Arjona), offers the location of a big time drug lord in exchange for smuggling her brother and her out of the country. She also tells him that the drug lord Lorea keeps all his money with him in his safe house in the jungle. Pope recruits his friends, a group of ex Army Special Forces, for a mission to take out Lorea and seize the money for themselves. But when things go wrong it's one unexpected turn of events after the other, with things spiralling out of control. In an epic battle for survival they are pushed to their breaking point, putting their morals, skills, and loyalties to the test.
This movie was good. Wasn't quite what I expected. As good as it was, I feel like it was missing something. It was a little slow in the beginning, after the first action sequence, and pacing was a bit off. Definitely as advertised in being an action/thriller. If you like action scenes where they shoot-'em-up, this definitely has plenty. I just felt with the pacing that they were far and in between. The acting was very good, the only thing I would say is that the characters didn't have much to keep you connected to them and really care about what happens to them in the long run. It felt like they weren't fully fleshed out and they could have done more to do that better. One thing it did do very well was how it showed the motivations of some of the characters and what led them to the decisions they made. I give this movie a 7/10.
In Columbia fighting drug crime, Santiago "Pope" Garcia (Oscar Isaac), has been working for 3 years. Finally the moment he's been waiting for occurs, when his informant, a woman named Yovanna (Adria Arjona), offers the location of a big time drug lord in exchange for smuggling her brother and her out of the country. She also tells him that the drug lord Lorea keeps all his money with him in his safe house in the jungle. Pope recruits his friends, a group of ex Army Special Forces, for a mission to take out Lorea and seize the money for themselves. But when things go wrong it's one unexpected turn of events after the other, with things spiralling out of control. In an epic battle for survival they are pushed to their breaking point, putting their morals, skills, and loyalties to the test.
This movie was good. Wasn't quite what I expected. As good as it was, I feel like it was missing something. It was a little slow in the beginning, after the first action sequence, and pacing was a bit off. Definitely as advertised in being an action/thriller. If you like action scenes where they shoot-'em-up, this definitely has plenty. I just felt with the pacing that they were far and in between. The acting was very good, the only thing I would say is that the characters didn't have much to keep you connected to them and really care about what happens to them in the long run. It felt like they weren't fully fleshed out and they could have done more to do that better. One thing it did do very well was how it showed the motivations of some of the characters and what led them to the decisions they made. I give this movie a 7/10.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Prospect (2018) in Movies
Jul 22, 2019
Verdict: Slow Paced
Story: Prospect starts when a father Damon (Duplass) and his daughter Cee (Thatcher) are travelling through space, looking to make a big discovery, thrown off path they land on an alien moon, setting out to explore the area.
When the pair run into Ezra (Pascal) another prospector on the moon, things turn to deals with the tension amped up to see who will leave the moon with the treasure on the moon, or whether leaving is a better option and soon they will learn of the other dangers on the moon.
Thoughts on Prospect
Characters – Cee is the teenager girl that has been travelling through space with her father, she does want to make a place her home, always wondering if she can get home, she must work with her father and a stranger to survive her time on this latest moon, proving she is ready to step up to do the more difficult tasks in life. Damon is Cee’s father, he has been searching space for valuable treasures so he can get out of this desperate lifestyle, his greed is his biggest weakness. Ezra is a stranger that the two run into, he is after the same thing and must earn their trust to survive and trust them to get survive the threats the moon has to offer.
Performances – Sophie Thatcher as the teenager does everything she can in her role, she doesn’t get to shine on the levels she could, but this falls back into the writing, Jay Duplass really doesn’t get the time to make an impact in this film, while Pedro Pascal is the highlight of the acting, because he must carry large parts of the dialogue in the film.
Story – The story follows a father and daughter prospector pairing that land on a new moon in search for their own richest only to find themselves in a battle to survive against rivals and the moon itself. This story is easily borrowing the idea of the early days of prospectors around the world, people that travelled great distances in hope of becoming rich, we get to see what is more important, riches or family, all in a position which has threats around every corner. The weakness of this story comes from the idea that moon is dangerous, though we only get environmental issues, with all the other problems being human, it would also have been nice to understand just how big the travelling is in this universe, we just casually follow on ship, is this one of the absolute poorest, is Earth uninhabitable now, there are so many questions about the universe we are entering that feel unanswered.
Sci-Fi – The sci-fi side of the film does just seem to be the characters wearing helmets, we barely get anything that makes this as ambitious as it could be.
Settings – The settings are beautiful though, the opening spaces, the closed woodland, yes it could easily be anywhere on Earth, but the visuals make this look like an alien moon in every shot.
Special Effects – The effects are used to add environment to the mon, but outside of this for a space based movie, we get very little to work with.
Scene of the Movie – First exploring of the moon.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is very slow.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that could have been a lot more interesting that we get, the pacing of the film does hold everything up and the fact we don’t learn more about the universe doesn’t help us understand just what is going on.
Overall: Keep searching for the treasure.
Rating
Story: Prospect starts when a father Damon (Duplass) and his daughter Cee (Thatcher) are travelling through space, looking to make a big discovery, thrown off path they land on an alien moon, setting out to explore the area.
When the pair run into Ezra (Pascal) another prospector on the moon, things turn to deals with the tension amped up to see who will leave the moon with the treasure on the moon, or whether leaving is a better option and soon they will learn of the other dangers on the moon.
Thoughts on Prospect
Characters – Cee is the teenager girl that has been travelling through space with her father, she does want to make a place her home, always wondering if she can get home, she must work with her father and a stranger to survive her time on this latest moon, proving she is ready to step up to do the more difficult tasks in life. Damon is Cee’s father, he has been searching space for valuable treasures so he can get out of this desperate lifestyle, his greed is his biggest weakness. Ezra is a stranger that the two run into, he is after the same thing and must earn their trust to survive and trust them to get survive the threats the moon has to offer.
Performances – Sophie Thatcher as the teenager does everything she can in her role, she doesn’t get to shine on the levels she could, but this falls back into the writing, Jay Duplass really doesn’t get the time to make an impact in this film, while Pedro Pascal is the highlight of the acting, because he must carry large parts of the dialogue in the film.
Story – The story follows a father and daughter prospector pairing that land on a new moon in search for their own richest only to find themselves in a battle to survive against rivals and the moon itself. This story is easily borrowing the idea of the early days of prospectors around the world, people that travelled great distances in hope of becoming rich, we get to see what is more important, riches or family, all in a position which has threats around every corner. The weakness of this story comes from the idea that moon is dangerous, though we only get environmental issues, with all the other problems being human, it would also have been nice to understand just how big the travelling is in this universe, we just casually follow on ship, is this one of the absolute poorest, is Earth uninhabitable now, there are so many questions about the universe we are entering that feel unanswered.
Sci-Fi – The sci-fi side of the film does just seem to be the characters wearing helmets, we barely get anything that makes this as ambitious as it could be.
Settings – The settings are beautiful though, the opening spaces, the closed woodland, yes it could easily be anywhere on Earth, but the visuals make this look like an alien moon in every shot.
Special Effects – The effects are used to add environment to the mon, but outside of this for a space based movie, we get very little to work with.
Scene of the Movie – First exploring of the moon.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is very slow.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that could have been a lot more interesting that we get, the pacing of the film does hold everything up and the fact we don’t learn more about the universe doesn’t help us understand just what is going on.
Overall: Keep searching for the treasure.
Rating
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Mandalorian - Season 1 in TV
May 5, 2020
A live action series set in the Star Wars universe has been a long time coming and thankfully, it hit almost all the right notes.
The Mandalorian is set after the events of Return of the Jedi, where the empire is all but gone, and the titular hero is going about his business, taking bounty jobs for good pay. It's not too long before it's revealed that remnants of the empire remain intact and one unexpected bounty job sets Mando on a different path entirely.
The plot isn't too heavy on dramatics for the most part, and the 8 episode arc concentrates on small stories - mini adventures that are resolved relatively quickly. It's a lot of fun. The final two episodes set up a larger narrative, that has me excited for season 2.
The Mandalorian himself (Pedro Pascal) is a great lead, and considering his face is covered the entire time, that's high praise. He has a cold, precise exterior, and shows off frequently his capabilities as a warrior (every episode has a pretty awesome action set piece at one point). Underneath it all, his humanity is shown when The Child (commonly know as Baby Yoda) is thrown into his care, drawing paraells with his own childhood.
The Child arguably steals the show at intervals, being offensively cute throughout, and showing hints at force powers here and there.
Other cast members include Cara Dune (Gina Carano), a completely badass ex Imperial Shock Trooper. Her character is another highlight, and I sincerely hope to see her return for season 2.
Greef Karga (Carl freaking Weathers), bounty salesman and sometimes ally of Mando. The three of them (plus The Child) make for a damn fine crew.
Some further Star power is provided by IG-11 (Taika Waititi) and Kuiil (Nick Nolte) and these two characters further flesh out a great cast.
The villains of the piece aren't in your face, but are present enough to lay the seeds for bigger things to come. Earlier on we have The Client (Werner Herzog oozing text book evil empire vibes), and a bit later, Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito), who is menacing enough to make an impact with his little screentime.
I also enjoyed the fleshing out of the Mandalorian religion.
There is some great directing talent in display as well, with episode from the likes of the aforementioned Taika Waititi, Deborah Chow, Dave Filoni, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Rick Famuyiwa. They've all down a great job of bringing this particular Star Wars narrative to life, and I genuinely enjoyed every episode.
Except for episode 6. And thats mainly due to the throwaway characters we get given. (It reminded me of that infamous shitty episode in season 2 of Stranger Things.)
The devotion to using practical effects pays off tremendously, as The Mandalorian frequently looks superb. The CGI used is actually pretty subtle, and the mix of the two works.
All in all, it's a strong first season that personally tops any of the recent trilogy in terms of Star Wars material. Can't wait to see where it goes!
The Mandalorian is set after the events of Return of the Jedi, where the empire is all but gone, and the titular hero is going about his business, taking bounty jobs for good pay. It's not too long before it's revealed that remnants of the empire remain intact and one unexpected bounty job sets Mando on a different path entirely.
The plot isn't too heavy on dramatics for the most part, and the 8 episode arc concentrates on small stories - mini adventures that are resolved relatively quickly. It's a lot of fun. The final two episodes set up a larger narrative, that has me excited for season 2.
The Mandalorian himself (Pedro Pascal) is a great lead, and considering his face is covered the entire time, that's high praise. He has a cold, precise exterior, and shows off frequently his capabilities as a warrior (every episode has a pretty awesome action set piece at one point). Underneath it all, his humanity is shown when The Child (commonly know as Baby Yoda) is thrown into his care, drawing paraells with his own childhood.
The Child arguably steals the show at intervals, being offensively cute throughout, and showing hints at force powers here and there.
Other cast members include Cara Dune (Gina Carano), a completely badass ex Imperial Shock Trooper. Her character is another highlight, and I sincerely hope to see her return for season 2.
Greef Karga (Carl freaking Weathers), bounty salesman and sometimes ally of Mando. The three of them (plus The Child) make for a damn fine crew.
Some further Star power is provided by IG-11 (Taika Waititi) and Kuiil (Nick Nolte) and these two characters further flesh out a great cast.
The villains of the piece aren't in your face, but are present enough to lay the seeds for bigger things to come. Earlier on we have The Client (Werner Herzog oozing text book evil empire vibes), and a bit later, Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito), who is menacing enough to make an impact with his little screentime.
I also enjoyed the fleshing out of the Mandalorian religion.
There is some great directing talent in display as well, with episode from the likes of the aforementioned Taika Waititi, Deborah Chow, Dave Filoni, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Rick Famuyiwa. They've all down a great job of bringing this particular Star Wars narrative to life, and I genuinely enjoyed every episode.
Except for episode 6. And thats mainly due to the throwaway characters we get given. (It reminded me of that infamous shitty episode in season 2 of Stranger Things.)
The devotion to using practical effects pays off tremendously, as The Mandalorian frequently looks superb. The CGI used is actually pretty subtle, and the mix of the two works.
All in all, it's a strong first season that personally tops any of the recent trilogy in terms of Star Wars material. Can't wait to see where it goes!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
