Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
365Flicks (235 KP) rated It Watches (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Well Holy Shit… I just got done watching this Independent Thriller/Horror movie It Watches which is headed your way on VOD shortly, and I have got to say it has been a while since a movie completely pulled the rug out from under me. I mean damn, I am a Cinema Goer/Movie Watcher that likes to think he is always one step ahead of the movie and for the most part I am but I have to say this one outsmarted me. This makes me very very happy.
To Director Dave Parker (The Hills Run Red) I tip my cap. First of all because I am getting tired of all this camcorder crap. It feels like every Horror movie these days has got to have that found footage/CCTV feel to it. However this it-watches-19movie actually felt fresh in its approach and didn’t over play what it was doing, the jump scares were minimal and the camcorder style only served to ratchet up the tension. So lets just get into this…
After having suffered an accident Andre (Ivan Djurovic – Zoombies) is given the chance to spend some time relaxing away from it all the while also helping out his good friend Robert (Rick Irwin – 30 Minutes or Less) by House-sitting a fantastic place in the Hollywood hills. Andre proceeds to make a home video on his camcorder and gives us a tour of this awesome but pretty eerie home. This portion of the movie is all setting up the tone of what we have to come and you find yourself scanning every section of the screen for something to happen (Sometimes it does, sometimes not). As we approach night-fall Andre is joined by a lady friend Rachael (Sanny van Heteren – Hellraiser : Revelations) and it is from here things start to take a bit of a turn for the worse as we realize Andre and Rachael may not be the only people in the house. Add a creepy unknown element in Guy (James Duval – Donnie Darko) and we have all the makings of something special. In a completely unexpected, Surprising and a you will not see it coming movie.
I cant say much more about this flick because anymore than what I just told you and we are in major spoiler territory. What I will say though is that Director Dave Parker and Actor/Writer Ivan Djurovic have really come up with something special here and im so glad I gave it my time. Ivan absolutely shines here in what is essentially a movie powerhouse performance, making what at first seemed like strange choices in his acting but when you get to the end you can see exactly what the character is about (Mission Accomplished). The script is clever as hell and while I honestly thought they were telling me everything I needed to know from the get go, they still managed to make me feel like a bit of an idiot.
Add to all of this James Duval turns up so my Donnie Darko Geek Boner was severely super charged by this point.
So yeah I am on a huge Indie kick right now and movies like this are exactly why I love watching them, what these guys out there are doing with limited budget and unimaginable passion for there craft is amazing which is why we should all give them the time they deserve. Give this movie a go and let me know what you thought.
To Director Dave Parker (The Hills Run Red) I tip my cap. First of all because I am getting tired of all this camcorder crap. It feels like every Horror movie these days has got to have that found footage/CCTV feel to it. However this it-watches-19movie actually felt fresh in its approach and didn’t over play what it was doing, the jump scares were minimal and the camcorder style only served to ratchet up the tension. So lets just get into this…
After having suffered an accident Andre (Ivan Djurovic – Zoombies) is given the chance to spend some time relaxing away from it all the while also helping out his good friend Robert (Rick Irwin – 30 Minutes or Less) by House-sitting a fantastic place in the Hollywood hills. Andre proceeds to make a home video on his camcorder and gives us a tour of this awesome but pretty eerie home. This portion of the movie is all setting up the tone of what we have to come and you find yourself scanning every section of the screen for something to happen (Sometimes it does, sometimes not). As we approach night-fall Andre is joined by a lady friend Rachael (Sanny van Heteren – Hellraiser : Revelations) and it is from here things start to take a bit of a turn for the worse as we realize Andre and Rachael may not be the only people in the house. Add a creepy unknown element in Guy (James Duval – Donnie Darko) and we have all the makings of something special. In a completely unexpected, Surprising and a you will not see it coming movie.
I cant say much more about this flick because anymore than what I just told you and we are in major spoiler territory. What I will say though is that Director Dave Parker and Actor/Writer Ivan Djurovic have really come up with something special here and im so glad I gave it my time. Ivan absolutely shines here in what is essentially a movie powerhouse performance, making what at first seemed like strange choices in his acting but when you get to the end you can see exactly what the character is about (Mission Accomplished). The script is clever as hell and while I honestly thought they were telling me everything I needed to know from the get go, they still managed to make me feel like a bit of an idiot.
Add to all of this James Duval turns up so my Donnie Darko Geek Boner was severely super charged by this point.
So yeah I am on a huge Indie kick right now and movies like this are exactly why I love watching them, what these guys out there are doing with limited budget and unimaginable passion for there craft is amazing which is why we should all give them the time they deserve. Give this movie a go and let me know what you thought.
JT (287 KP) rated Killing Them Softly (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There was quite a significant gap between films for writer/director Andrew Dominik, five years in fact. His last feature length outing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a Western epic and here he has teamed up with Brad Pitt again for Killing Them Softly, one with a significantly shorter run time.
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated We Own the Night (2007) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Crime movie for crime movie fans
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a crime film for crime movie fans. It has it all, from sex, violence, wires and gritty hits. But at its heart is family, here driven by the two leads, Mark Wahlberg and Jequium Phoenix, reunited in yet another of James Grey's films. The tone is dark, with a realistic look as we are taken on trip back to 1988 and a fictional cop family, led by the Deputy Chief Of Police (NYPD) Robert Duvall, who is the father to Wahlberg's up and coming cop, with Phoenix's nightclub manager, who is not a criminal as such, but is a disappointment to his family.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
As the trio become embroiled in an organised crime syndicate, they find themselves under a very personal attack and must take down the mob boss to save their lives. The problem with this film is that it plods its way through, lacking enough tension or high key performances to carry, what to me, should have been a taunt screenplay. Instead, it's a bit flat, with Phoenix's trademark sleepy performance. On the other hand, it's quite good, driven by real motivations and characters, is what saves this from 5/10 rating is a fantastically low-key car chase which looked and felt phenomenal, ending with tragedy which would drive the story in a more dubious direction.
Phoenix will end up being granted special dispensation to become a cop in order to track down the mobster, a plot point that I found to be a little far-fetched, though maybe this sort of thing has happened, I don't know but it just tipped the film over the edge of plausibility. I feel that We Own The Night, the motto of the now disbanded NYPD Street Crime Unit, which is headed up here by the fictional Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Wahlberg) thinks very highly of itself as a top quality crime drama, up there with the likes of The Godfather (1972) and Heat (1995), but it is not. It's good and better if you like the genre, but this is a film set in the late 80′s, made in the style of The Godfather light, which was a quintessential 1970′s movie. It needed to pack more of a punch or have some of the style which films such as those of Michael Mann or Martin Scorsese.
A decent story, good cinematography and noble effort but failed to blow me away.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Berserk Excursion Down Uncanny Valley.
“I see you”. James Cameron‘s fingerprints are all over this one, as producer ahead of his threatened (and with this movie-goer, entirely unwanted) Avatar sequels. Alita is a huge great smelly CGI mess of a film, but quite fun with it.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
The Plot.
Christophe Waltz plays Dr. Dyson (no, not that one), a cyber-surgeon in the 24th century whose job is to give cyber/human crossovers (which just about everyone now seems to be) a ‘service’ to get them back on the road again.
Hanging over Iron City – in just the same way as bricks don’t – is a huge floating cloud city called Zalem (“What keeps it up?”; “Engineering!”). A stream of detritus falls from the city into the scrap yards below, and Dr Dyson scavenges through the mess for parts. He discovers that the best way to get ahead in business is to… get a head! In this case, it’s the head and upper torso of a female ‘teenage’ cyber-girl who he finds to be still alive and who he names “Alita”.
But Alita (Rosa Salazar) isn’t just any teenage girl. When fitted out with a new body, one very precious to Dyson, Alita proves to have massive strength and dexterity which sets her up to trial for the national sport of Motorball: a no-holds-barred race around an arena to capture and keep a ball. Her love interest, Hugo (Keean Johnson), can help her in that department.
But dark forces are also in play and the agents of Nova, the Zalem-overseer, have great interest in destroying Alita before she can damage his plans.
What a mess!
I’ve significantly simplified the plot and reduced the characters referenced. There are so many different things going on here, it’s like they’ve made Back to the Future I, II and III and squeezed them all into one film. There’s Dyson’s ex-wife Chiran (Jennifer Connolly) and her partner in crime Vector (Maherashala Ali); there’s their pet thug called Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley); there’s a bunch of “Hunter-Warriors” including a vicious sword-wielding guy called Zapan (Ed Skrein); there’s a kind of “Lost Boys” vibe to Hugo’s pals including Alita-hater Tanji (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.); etc. etc. etc. It’s a huge great sprawling mess of a plot.
The movie is also highly derivative, and watching it feels like you are working through a mental set of check-boxes of the films it apes: Wall-E (check); Elysium (check); Terminator (check); Rollerball (if you’re old enough to remember that one) (check); even some Harry Potter quidditch thrown in for good measure.
Urm… berserk dialogue.
The story is based on a Manga work by Yukito Kishiro, but the script by James Cameron, director Robert Rodriquez and Laeta Kalogridis has some bat-shit crazy moments.
Remembering that Cameron in Avatar brought us the mineral ‘unobtainium’ there are similar ‘jolt yourself awake’ moments here. At one point Waltz starts talking about what sounds like “Panda c***s”…. I’m sorry… what?? (This was clearly an episode of David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth” that passed me by! Although frankly, if male pandas took a bit more interest in panda c***s, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But I digress….)
The turns.
What stands out if the quality of the cast. Who wouldn’t kill to have Waltz, Connolly and Ali starring in their film? The inclusion of Maherashala Ali in here was a surprise to me. I know he has had a part in “The Hunger Games” series, but this is surely (Marvel must be kicking themselves) his most ‘mainstream’ film to date. And he again really shows his class, bringing a gravitas to all the scenes he’s in.
It was also interesting to see Ed Skrein in a movie for the second time in a month. He was the racist cop in “If Beale Street Could Talk“, and here he plays an equally unpleasant character with a sideline in vanity.
Also good fun is to see the cameo of who plays Nova in the final scene of the film. I was not expecting that.
But the film lives and dies on believing Alita, and after you get used to the rather spooky ‘uncanny valley’ eyes, Rosa Salazar really breathes life into the android character: you can really believe its a teenage android girl developing her understanding of the world and of love. (We’ll gloss over the age thing here which doesn’t make a lot of sense!). One thing’s for sure, when Alita gives her heart to a boy, she really gives her heart to a boy!
Will I like it?
I was not expecting to, but did. It’s a big, brash, loud CGI-stuffed adventure, but well done and visually appealing (as you would expect given the director is Robert Rodriguez of “Sin City” fame). The BBFC have given it a 12A rating in the UK, which feels appropriate: there are some pretty graphic scenes of violence (true they are “mostly involving robots fighting each other” as the BBFC says, but not all). That would make it not very suitable for younger children.
But I was entertained. You might well be too.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Good visuals, not much else to recommend it
A few of my loyal readers recommended that I check out ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL in the biggest screen I could find, and in 3D. And...I'm glad I did for this film is a visual feast for the eyes, filled with eye-popping CGI and an interesting futuristic world on which the events of the film take place.
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Truth (2015) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019
The truth is out there...
Doubtful anyone from outside the United States (or even many within the US) would remember "Rathergate", the subject this film explores, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.