Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Honest Thief (2020) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Tom (Liam Neeson) is a long-time bank robber eager to put his past behind him in the new film “Honest Thief”. A circumstance forced Tom to decide to strike back at the establishment following a career in ordinance in the military and has found he has a real talent for blowing safes and making away with millions of dollars over several years.
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I don't want you all to think I'm harsh here. "Only three and a half stars?!? What's wrong with this woman?!" This film is immense and the emotion is so real that I was bawling my eyes out, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't feel the need to rewatch this one. And yes, I do feel slightly terrible about that.
The introduction to both characters at the beginning works incredibly well, you get the chaotic and drunken nature of Jackson and I think Ally really sums up how many women and men feel about men that are in their lives.
When singing was involved with the two of them together their chemistry was undeniable. But the rest of the time I didn't particularly enjoy them. The story was still flowing well and the subject matter was being handled well, but I think the awkwardness of the situations was probably a little too real for me.
Lady Gaga, is just incredible. As a singer. As an actress. She's just marvelous. Her voice gives me goosebumps and I love that feeling.
The supporting cast were really good too. Her father's driver buddies offer some humour during the film, and Greg Grunberg as Jackson's drive is just adorable. By far my favourite was Dave Chappelle, I've loved him ever since Robin Hood: Men In Tights, this was a real step away from everything I've seen him in and it worked so well.
Sound was used incredibly well in this film, and not just for the songs. All the little touches that were used really helped get the message of the scene across.
On that note I will just give a brief mention the events at the end of the film. What transpires is really raw, and you can feel every emotion that's flying around. I always keep a notepad with me to scribble words to remind me of certain things to add to my reviews... all I wrote at the end of of this was "f****** dog"... it really got to me... and yep, there go the waterworks again!
What should you do?
You should see it, plain and simple. This film will stay with you. You will hum and sing the songs. 95% of you are going to cry whether you liked it or not.
As I left the cinema the night I watched this I sat in my car and looked at the clock. It was just 10pm and normally on a "school" night I'd go straight home to bed, but I knew I couldn't. I needed chocolate. I never need anything at this time of night apart from sleep on a normal night. I drove to Tesco to go shopping and then sat in bed eating chocolate buttons. It helped.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would love Lady Gaga's voice, or just a smidgen of her talent.
The introduction to both characters at the beginning works incredibly well, you get the chaotic and drunken nature of Jackson and I think Ally really sums up how many women and men feel about men that are in their lives.
When singing was involved with the two of them together their chemistry was undeniable. But the rest of the time I didn't particularly enjoy them. The story was still flowing well and the subject matter was being handled well, but I think the awkwardness of the situations was probably a little too real for me.
Lady Gaga, is just incredible. As a singer. As an actress. She's just marvelous. Her voice gives me goosebumps and I love that feeling.
The supporting cast were really good too. Her father's driver buddies offer some humour during the film, and Greg Grunberg as Jackson's drive is just adorable. By far my favourite was Dave Chappelle, I've loved him ever since Robin Hood: Men In Tights, this was a real step away from everything I've seen him in and it worked so well.
Sound was used incredibly well in this film, and not just for the songs. All the little touches that were used really helped get the message of the scene across.
On that note I will just give a brief mention the events at the end of the film. What transpires is really raw, and you can feel every emotion that's flying around. I always keep a notepad with me to scribble words to remind me of certain things to add to my reviews... all I wrote at the end of of this was "f****** dog"... it really got to me... and yep, there go the waterworks again!
What should you do?
You should see it, plain and simple. This film will stay with you. You will hum and sing the songs. 95% of you are going to cry whether you liked it or not.
As I left the cinema the night I watched this I sat in my car and looked at the clock. It was just 10pm and normally on a "school" night I'd go straight home to bed, but I knew I couldn't. I needed chocolate. I never need anything at this time of night apart from sleep on a normal night. I drove to Tesco to go shopping and then sat in bed eating chocolate buttons. It helped.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would love Lady Gaga's voice, or just a smidgen of her talent.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Private War (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I really do think that this viewing of A Private War was enhanced by the inclusion of the Q&A with cast and crew at the end. Not so much for the acting process and things but for the look at facts behind the movie itself. It's something They Shall Not Grow Old did too. Having the extra feature like this is a great inclusion, especially because a lot of movie-goers will just leave the cinema with assumptions about what they've seen and not do any further research.
One thing I'd noted during the film was just how real the acting felt from the civilians. The reason for that (as discovered in the Q&A) was because they were actual civilians who had their lives changed by war. The moments they had on screen had an amazing impact before you even discovered that fact.
The acting talent in this does an amazing job. Tom Hollander and Corey Johnson bring us solid supporting roles, and there's a nice surprise of Stanley Tucci too. I'm only seen Jamie Dornan in last year's Robin Hood and he was reasonable in that, his appearance in A Private War is good but against all the other things happening it's not making it into my top ten things about the film.
Now... Rosamund Pike... there's no denying she's a wonderful actress and this role must have been so difficult to get right. Intensity and compassion when she's in the field and interviewing, to the sadness and emotion when she is home and struggling with her situation, Pike covers pretty much everything. There's only one moment where I didn't feel the connection to the character. Marie opens up to Paul in what feels like it should be an emotional scene but when it cuts out to the next one I was surprised that it didn't really hit as well as everything else did.
I loved the way they used subtitles in this, or rather didn't. When we see Marie talking her way through a roadblock the suspense is everywhere, there's no instant translation and that coupled with some great camera work gives you that feeling of mild panic along with the characters.
I wasn't entirely sure what I was getting myself into when I booked a ticket for this. I even had to pay for it as it was classified as an event rather than a film (which I thought was a little cheeky considering none of the other Q&A screenings I've been to have been) but it was £6 well spent.
We also get treated to hearing Annie Lennox's creation, Requiem For A Private War. Atmospheric and haunting, the song made me pause, her instantly recognisable voice hits the right tone for the film.
What you should do
When this comes out on February 15th you should definitely go and see it. It's an interesting creation and shows you a side of journalism that many have probably never even thought about.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've got a bathtub that Stanley Tucci is more than welcome to come and sit in... I know I've just brought the tone of this would review down with this but I don't care.
One thing I'd noted during the film was just how real the acting felt from the civilians. The reason for that (as discovered in the Q&A) was because they were actual civilians who had their lives changed by war. The moments they had on screen had an amazing impact before you even discovered that fact.
The acting talent in this does an amazing job. Tom Hollander and Corey Johnson bring us solid supporting roles, and there's a nice surprise of Stanley Tucci too. I'm only seen Jamie Dornan in last year's Robin Hood and he was reasonable in that, his appearance in A Private War is good but against all the other things happening it's not making it into my top ten things about the film.
Now... Rosamund Pike... there's no denying she's a wonderful actress and this role must have been so difficult to get right. Intensity and compassion when she's in the field and interviewing, to the sadness and emotion when she is home and struggling with her situation, Pike covers pretty much everything. There's only one moment where I didn't feel the connection to the character. Marie opens up to Paul in what feels like it should be an emotional scene but when it cuts out to the next one I was surprised that it didn't really hit as well as everything else did.
I loved the way they used subtitles in this, or rather didn't. When we see Marie talking her way through a roadblock the suspense is everywhere, there's no instant translation and that coupled with some great camera work gives you that feeling of mild panic along with the characters.
I wasn't entirely sure what I was getting myself into when I booked a ticket for this. I even had to pay for it as it was classified as an event rather than a film (which I thought was a little cheeky considering none of the other Q&A screenings I've been to have been) but it was £6 well spent.
We also get treated to hearing Annie Lennox's creation, Requiem For A Private War. Atmospheric and haunting, the song made me pause, her instantly recognisable voice hits the right tone for the film.
What you should do
When this comes out on February 15th you should definitely go and see it. It's an interesting creation and shows you a side of journalism that many have probably never even thought about.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've got a bathtub that Stanley Tucci is more than welcome to come and sit in... I know I've just brought the tone of this would review down with this but I don't care.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
May 6, 2019
A Classic in Every Sense of the Word
"Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine."
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the Playstation 5 version of Gotham Knights in Video Games
Nov 4, 2022
Gotham Knights Delivers Dark Action For DC Fans
Following the success of the Arkham series of games would be a daunting
task for any developer and when WB Games Montreal announced Gotham Knights
and that it would not benefit from the inclusion of Batman; fans of the
series were curious about what the new game would hold.
Taking place shortly after the death of Batman which is depicted in an
the amazing animated sequence that sets the tone for the game well; Nightwing,
The Red Hood, Robin, and Batgirl are tasked to pick up where Batman left
off and protect the city but also deal with a murder mystery and even
darker threat than they could have imagined facing the city.
Players will select a character and as they gain experience, new costumes,
abilities and moves will become available as well as the ability to Fast
Travel between locales on the map. This is essential as the city is a
sprawling and cluttered urban setting filled with dangers around every
corner.
Playing as Nightwing I was able to summon a cycle and speed to locales and
setting waypoints on the map allowed my path to be displayed which was
much better than driving in a general direction. I also had the option to
fire a Zipline and pull myself all over the city and up very tall
buildings which allowed me to get around when driving was not always the
ideal option.
The game is filled with side quests as well as appearances by classic
Batman Universe characters both good and bad and always added a nice
element to the game.
The combat in the game is nimble and at times brutal as there is no end
of gangs, enemies, and thugs to battle and using hit and run tactics to
dodge and attack often work well but require some patience as some
enemies take a good amount of damage before they fall and when your health
packs run low, players often have to adjust on the fly to survive.
There are also puzzles to solve along the way that help provide clues to
the ongoing threat and players will be able to return to the Belfry to get
a break, update the narrative, check the clues, and update their costume
and skills.
The game does provide an extensive amount of gameplay and even upon
completion there are side quests that can be undertaken as well as
patrols.
Multiplay is an option as players can form a team or drop in. The few
times I tried this I was paired with individuals who were busy doing their
own thing as having someone to watch my back during the more challenging
missions would have been ideal.
The game did have a few frustrations like having to align near objects at
times just right for them to allow me to manipulate them and the mission
pathfinding was a bit confusing early on as were some elements of the
crafting menu.
As I spent more time with the game and updates became available, I became
engrossed in the story which was constantly evolving and the darker tones
were very appealing to me. It was great to be able to explore the
highly-detailed city but at times the travel did seem a bit tedious
especially missions where I had to patrol and beat information out of
random street thugs in order to progress.
That being said, the game was entertaining and I am curious about playing
as some of the other characters as well as seeing what future missions
will be made available while it does not reach the level of Arkham
Asylum, Gotham Knights was for me a very enjoyable adventure despite some
flaws and one that I think DC fans will enjoy if they are patient and
willing to overlook some of the shortcomings of the game to focus on the
things it does well.
3.5 stars out of 5
task for any developer and when WB Games Montreal announced Gotham Knights
and that it would not benefit from the inclusion of Batman; fans of the
series were curious about what the new game would hold.
Taking place shortly after the death of Batman which is depicted in an
the amazing animated sequence that sets the tone for the game well; Nightwing,
The Red Hood, Robin, and Batgirl are tasked to pick up where Batman left
off and protect the city but also deal with a murder mystery and even
darker threat than they could have imagined facing the city.
Players will select a character and as they gain experience, new costumes,
abilities and moves will become available as well as the ability to Fast
Travel between locales on the map. This is essential as the city is a
sprawling and cluttered urban setting filled with dangers around every
corner.
Playing as Nightwing I was able to summon a cycle and speed to locales and
setting waypoints on the map allowed my path to be displayed which was
much better than driving in a general direction. I also had the option to
fire a Zipline and pull myself all over the city and up very tall
buildings which allowed me to get around when driving was not always the
ideal option.
The game is filled with side quests as well as appearances by classic
Batman Universe characters both good and bad and always added a nice
element to the game.
The combat in the game is nimble and at times brutal as there is no end
of gangs, enemies, and thugs to battle and using hit and run tactics to
dodge and attack often work well but require some patience as some
enemies take a good amount of damage before they fall and when your health
packs run low, players often have to adjust on the fly to survive.
There are also puzzles to solve along the way that help provide clues to
the ongoing threat and players will be able to return to the Belfry to get
a break, update the narrative, check the clues, and update their costume
and skills.
The game does provide an extensive amount of gameplay and even upon
completion there are side quests that can be undertaken as well as
patrols.
Multiplay is an option as players can form a team or drop in. The few
times I tried this I was paired with individuals who were busy doing their
own thing as having someone to watch my back during the more challenging
missions would have been ideal.
The game did have a few frustrations like having to align near objects at
times just right for them to allow me to manipulate them and the mission
pathfinding was a bit confusing early on as were some elements of the
crafting menu.
As I spent more time with the game and updates became available, I became
engrossed in the story which was constantly evolving and the darker tones
were very appealing to me. It was great to be able to explore the
highly-detailed city but at times the travel did seem a bit tedious
especially missions where I had to patrol and beat information out of
random street thugs in order to progress.
That being said, the game was entertaining and I am curious about playing
as some of the other characters as well as seeing what future missions
will be made available while it does not reach the level of Arkham
Asylum, Gotham Knights was for me a very enjoyable adventure despite some
flaws and one that I think DC fans will enjoy if they are patient and
willing to overlook some of the shortcomings of the game to focus on the
things it does well.
3.5 stars out of 5
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated In Time (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
t is said that time is money and in the new film “In Time” this statement takes on an entirely new meaning. In the future we learn that humans have been genetically created to stop aging at the age of 25. Once they reach this selected age, a clock starts to count down from one year. People can obtain more time via work, stealing it from others, or being gifted more time but once their clock hits zero, they expire or “Time Out” as it is called.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.