Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Taking on a movie as beloved as “The Wizard of Oz” is a daunting task. The iconic Judy Garland film is considered a classic and many of the songs from the film have remained part of our culture since it was released in 1939. Despite several book sequels, the attempts to continue the series have had little success as there have been animated films as well as an urban remake, “The Wiz”, which also failed to reach the success of the original. Director Sam Raimi opted to do an original prequel story that tells of how the fabled Wizard of Oz came to be.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 16, 2021
It should have happened way sooner, but finally, Black Widow is here, and in short, it's pretty damn good.
There are many questions that hang over the future of the MCU and the direction that they are going. With so many cogs in motion via the various limited series on Disney+ and the impending multiverse, this first theatrical realease of phase four is a welcome and grounded change of pace, focusing on a story set in a time period we've already seen before, more specifically, set between the events of Civil War and Infinity War.
Natasha Romanoff is a rich character. Her backstory has been teased a handful of times throughout the series, but her big moment in the spotlight really gets into it. The narrative is nicely paced, fairly dialogue heavy in places, but allows the story arc space to breathe. The set pieces peppered throughout are decent, including a stupidly entertaining finale, but they never detract from the many character moments between Natasha and her "family".
The cast are absolutely solid. Scarlett Johansson is Natasha Romanoff through and through. Her presence in the MCU all this time has been a welcome one. She is bolstered by a stacked supporting cast also. Florence Pugh is great as usual, and a fine addition to the ever growing MCU roster, as is David Harbour. It's always a pleasure to see Rachel Weisz in anything. Same for Ray Winstone, even when he's playing an awful shitpiece.
A couple of minore gripes - The Taskmaster we get here is certainly not the Taskmaster comic fans may be familiar with. The way they are slipped into the narrative makes sense, but I hope the "real" Taskmaster is out there somewhere. The version we have here is parallel to the version of Deadpool we saw in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, essentially a mute henchman which is a shame.
I also wasn't a huge fan of some of the editing, especially in the more action heavy segments, but it's not enough to de-rail what is a triumphant and overdue solo effort for a truly beloved character.
If this is indeed the last time we see Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow (which I'm sceptical about, what with the multiverse incoming and all that), then it's a fitting send off.
There are many questions that hang over the future of the MCU and the direction that they are going. With so many cogs in motion via the various limited series on Disney+ and the impending multiverse, this first theatrical realease of phase four is a welcome and grounded change of pace, focusing on a story set in a time period we've already seen before, more specifically, set between the events of Civil War and Infinity War.
Natasha Romanoff is a rich character. Her backstory has been teased a handful of times throughout the series, but her big moment in the spotlight really gets into it. The narrative is nicely paced, fairly dialogue heavy in places, but allows the story arc space to breathe. The set pieces peppered throughout are decent, including a stupidly entertaining finale, but they never detract from the many character moments between Natasha and her "family".
The cast are absolutely solid. Scarlett Johansson is Natasha Romanoff through and through. Her presence in the MCU all this time has been a welcome one. She is bolstered by a stacked supporting cast also. Florence Pugh is great as usual, and a fine addition to the ever growing MCU roster, as is David Harbour. It's always a pleasure to see Rachel Weisz in anything. Same for Ray Winstone, even when he's playing an awful shitpiece.
A couple of minore gripes - The Taskmaster we get here is certainly not the Taskmaster comic fans may be familiar with. The way they are slipped into the narrative makes sense, but I hope the "real" Taskmaster is out there somewhere. The version we have here is parallel to the version of Deadpool we saw in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, essentially a mute henchman which is a shame.
I also wasn't a huge fan of some of the editing, especially in the more action heavy segments, but it's not enough to de-rail what is a triumphant and overdue solo effort for a truly beloved character.
If this is indeed the last time we see Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow (which I'm sceptical about, what with the multiverse incoming and all that), then it's a fitting send off.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019
Quirky and original with strong performances and direction
Greek Director Yorgos Lanthimos is the director of such quirky, bizarre comedy/dramas as DOGTOOTH, THE LOBSTER and KILLING OF A SACRED DEER and his latest, THE FAVOURITE is no different, so when it was nominated for 10 Oscars, I thought I'd better go see what all the fuss was all about.
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2018
Blech
The Mummy was a completely awesome movie! Filled with perfectly timed comedy, a strong female heroine, a somewhat sinister Mummy, and great lines! I’m talking, of course, about the 1999 version of The Mummy. The one starring Brendan Fraser and the wonderful Rachel Weisz.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
Fantastic script (3 more)
Brilliant performances
Clever cinematography
Insanely detailed set design
Strange But Brilliant
To be honest, I am not a huge fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' other movies, I also have a hatred for most period pieces. I am however a huge fan of Olivia Colman and it was her that swayed me to go and see this movie and I am very glad that I did.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Bourne Legacy (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
With the franchise torch passing from Matt Damon to Jeremy Renner, “The Bourne Legacy” shows that there is still plenty of life in the franchise.
The events of the film take place during and after the events in The Bourne Ultimatum”and portrays the effects and consequences of the actions taken by Jason Bourne in the first three movies. Now that Bourne has made Treadstone/Blackbriar public and began to seek some measure of justice for lives that were destroyed by the program, the government attempts to cover-up their operations and discredit Bourne and his associate CIA deputy director Pamela Landy who is facing a myriad of charges.
Enter Stacy Keach and Ed Norton who ooze a chilling creepiness as shadowy government figures who will stop at nothing to cover up the growing scandal, including wholesale murder.
Bourne and his program were, in the words of one character, “the tip of the iceberg” and as such, just another program the government ran, which had the same goals of Operation Treadstone but used different methods to create and train their agents, becomes the focus of the film.
Alex Cross (Renner), finds himself the lone survivor of a purge that has eliminated all the living members of his program, this includes the very scientists who helped created the enhanced agents. As a creation who needs special medications to function, Cross races to Washington in an attempt to reach Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who has been a medical contact for Cross for years. Shearing herself is a survivor of numerous dangers and attempted assassinations, thanks to the timely arrival of Cross.
In an attempt to escape the government manhunt lead by Agent Eric Byer (Edward Norton), As these events are unfolding, the actions of Jason Bourne and Pam Landy in the final moments of ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’ are beginning to unravel which forces Cross and Marta to flee to Manila to get Cross a shot at being able to function at his elite level with the need for medications.
With locales that include the wilderness of Alaska, the alleys of Chicago, America’s east coast, and the streets of Manila, “The Bourne Legacy” breathes new life into the franchise. While the first hour of the film moved at a slow pace and lacked much action, the last thirty minutes kicked into high gear and included a fantastic chase and action sequence through Manila.
Renner does not try to be Bourne, and instead plays Cross as a kind but efficient warrior. We are given some insight into his backstory and motivations for entering the program, and Renner goes all out for a demanding and physical role while earning the audience’s sympathy for the plight of Cross.
Director Tony Gilroy (Who also had a hand in the script), knows the franchise well as he had a hand in writing the previous three films and directed one. It is clear that he is steering the franchise to a very likely fifth film, perhaps one where Renner and Damon will cross paths which would be to the fans’ delight. Should that not happen, the series is in great hands with Renner.
The events of the film take place during and after the events in The Bourne Ultimatum”and portrays the effects and consequences of the actions taken by Jason Bourne in the first three movies. Now that Bourne has made Treadstone/Blackbriar public and began to seek some measure of justice for lives that were destroyed by the program, the government attempts to cover-up their operations and discredit Bourne and his associate CIA deputy director Pamela Landy who is facing a myriad of charges.
Enter Stacy Keach and Ed Norton who ooze a chilling creepiness as shadowy government figures who will stop at nothing to cover up the growing scandal, including wholesale murder.
Bourne and his program were, in the words of one character, “the tip of the iceberg” and as such, just another program the government ran, which had the same goals of Operation Treadstone but used different methods to create and train their agents, becomes the focus of the film.
Alex Cross (Renner), finds himself the lone survivor of a purge that has eliminated all the living members of his program, this includes the very scientists who helped created the enhanced agents. As a creation who needs special medications to function, Cross races to Washington in an attempt to reach Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who has been a medical contact for Cross for years. Shearing herself is a survivor of numerous dangers and attempted assassinations, thanks to the timely arrival of Cross.
In an attempt to escape the government manhunt lead by Agent Eric Byer (Edward Norton), As these events are unfolding, the actions of Jason Bourne and Pam Landy in the final moments of ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’ are beginning to unravel which forces Cross and Marta to flee to Manila to get Cross a shot at being able to function at his elite level with the need for medications.
With locales that include the wilderness of Alaska, the alleys of Chicago, America’s east coast, and the streets of Manila, “The Bourne Legacy” breathes new life into the franchise. While the first hour of the film moved at a slow pace and lacked much action, the last thirty minutes kicked into high gear and included a fantastic chase and action sequence through Manila.
Renner does not try to be Bourne, and instead plays Cross as a kind but efficient warrior. We are given some insight into his backstory and motivations for entering the program, and Renner goes all out for a demanding and physical role while earning the audience’s sympathy for the plight of Cross.
Director Tony Gilroy (Who also had a hand in the script), knows the franchise well as he had a hand in writing the previous three films and directed one. It is clear that he is steering the franchise to a very likely fifth film, perhaps one where Renner and Damon will cross paths which would be to the fans’ delight. Should that not happen, the series is in great hands with Renner.