Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Get Smart (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the post Cold-War era the focus on national security has changed from focusing on Eastern Block adversaries to terror cells and state sponsored terrorism. For the agents of the ultra secret agency Control, the demise of their arch nemesis KAOS was the signal that they had ceased to be important in the world of today and had shut down when in truth they just went further into a cloak of secrecy and continued their mission.
In the new movie “Get Smart” audiences are given a new interpretation of the classic Mel Brooks/Buck Henry series that started Don Adams and Barbra Feldon as a pair of secret agents tasked with saving the world.
This time out Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway star Maxwell Smart and Agent 99 as they are forced to work with one another following a devastating attack on Control headquarters which results in the exposure of their operatives worldwide.
With no agents having the required anonymity needed to perform covert missions, the Chief of Control (Alan Arkin), is forced to promote eager intelligence analyst Smart to the ranks of field agent and pairs him with Agent 99 who is still able to maintain her guise thanks to some prep work she had done for a prior assignment.
To say that 99 is not thrilled to be paired with Smart would be an understatement, as she sees the eager Smart to be an unproven liability and one that would likely cause the failure of the mission and kill both of them.
Since the ultra suave Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson), is unable to work in the field, Smart and Agent 99 are forced to work with one another as they head off to Russia to get to the bottom of the weapons threat and hopefully follow the trail to the ultimate threat, Siegfried (Terrance Stamp), who is the brains behind an all new wave of terror that only Agent 99 and Smart can stop.
The film starts out slowly, but eventually finds its rhythm and does a decent job of blending comedy and action. Hathaway and Carell do a great job with the material as both roles require a degree of physicality that they have not shown in previous works.
The laughs on the film are constant, but they are off the more dumb humor comedy as nobody will mistake this film as a piece of high comedy. Which is not to say this is a bad thing as Carell is very likeable as Smart and while he portrays the character differently than did the late Don Adams; he maintains the goofy competence that his character requires as despite being a goofball, he does get the job done in the end.
The fine supporting work by Arkin and Johnson as well as a good amount of cameos lead to the fun of the film.
It is important to note that this is not a retelling of the original series that ran from 1965-1970 but a completely new interpretation of the series which has been updated to reflect the modern setting yet contains plenty of winks to the show that inspired it.
While many of the series catch phrases seem out of place in the film, I found myself enjoying the new film despite being a fan of the original series.
Some have leveled criticism that the film has traded locker room humor, stupid comedy, and FX for the wit and inventiveness that made the original series so popular.
I found myself enjoying the new version of the film and enjoyed the performances of the characters and while not side splittingly funny, there were more than enough chuckles along the way to keep me entertained.
Here is hoping 86 and 99 will be back on the big screen for future missions.
In the new movie “Get Smart” audiences are given a new interpretation of the classic Mel Brooks/Buck Henry series that started Don Adams and Barbra Feldon as a pair of secret agents tasked with saving the world.
This time out Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway star Maxwell Smart and Agent 99 as they are forced to work with one another following a devastating attack on Control headquarters which results in the exposure of their operatives worldwide.
With no agents having the required anonymity needed to perform covert missions, the Chief of Control (Alan Arkin), is forced to promote eager intelligence analyst Smart to the ranks of field agent and pairs him with Agent 99 who is still able to maintain her guise thanks to some prep work she had done for a prior assignment.
To say that 99 is not thrilled to be paired with Smart would be an understatement, as she sees the eager Smart to be an unproven liability and one that would likely cause the failure of the mission and kill both of them.
Since the ultra suave Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson), is unable to work in the field, Smart and Agent 99 are forced to work with one another as they head off to Russia to get to the bottom of the weapons threat and hopefully follow the trail to the ultimate threat, Siegfried (Terrance Stamp), who is the brains behind an all new wave of terror that only Agent 99 and Smart can stop.
The film starts out slowly, but eventually finds its rhythm and does a decent job of blending comedy and action. Hathaway and Carell do a great job with the material as both roles require a degree of physicality that they have not shown in previous works.
The laughs on the film are constant, but they are off the more dumb humor comedy as nobody will mistake this film as a piece of high comedy. Which is not to say this is a bad thing as Carell is very likeable as Smart and while he portrays the character differently than did the late Don Adams; he maintains the goofy competence that his character requires as despite being a goofball, he does get the job done in the end.
The fine supporting work by Arkin and Johnson as well as a good amount of cameos lead to the fun of the film.
It is important to note that this is not a retelling of the original series that ran from 1965-1970 but a completely new interpretation of the series which has been updated to reflect the modern setting yet contains plenty of winks to the show that inspired it.
While many of the series catch phrases seem out of place in the film, I found myself enjoying the new film despite being a fan of the original series.
Some have leveled criticism that the film has traded locker room humor, stupid comedy, and FX for the wit and inventiveness that made the original series so popular.
I found myself enjoying the new version of the film and enjoyed the performances of the characters and while not side splittingly funny, there were more than enough chuckles along the way to keep me entertained.
Here is hoping 86 and 99 will be back on the big screen for future missions.