Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018 (Updated Dec 14, 2018)
Cast all give good performances (1 more)
Cool to see the Drago's return to the franchise
A Decent Second Round
Creed 2 is the follow up to Ryan Coogler's brilliant 2015 soft reboot of the franchise. This time though, Steven Caple Jr takes the director's chair and delivers a sequel that is still fun, but nowhere near as original or breath-taking as the first Creed.
The cast all still manage to put in good performances and they make the very most of the material that they are all given. It is also cool to see Dolph Lundgren return to the iconic role of Ivan Drago after so many years. I also feel like the guy who plays Creed's opponent in the movie, Ivan Drago, deserves a shout out. He is played by real life boxer and hard-man Florian Munteanu and not only does he bring a magnificent physical presence to the role, but delivers some convincing confliction in the reasons he has for pursuing this goal of taking Creed's title and some genuinely emotional gravitas, he wasn't just the typical mean Rocky movie villain that you would expect.
The most disappointing thing about Creed 2 is the lacklustre filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, the direction, the cinematography and the lighting etc are perfectly serviceable and even come close to borderline exiting in a few rare spots. However, after that beautiful long take during Adonis' fight in Mexico and the other awesome imagery used in the first Creed, this just feels vastly formulaic as a follow up.
Overall, If you are a fan of the Rocky franchise like I am, then you have most likely already seen this anyway and if not, there isn't much here to merit me recommending it to a franchise newcomer and you would be much better served with the technically superior first Creed film. Still though, there is an enjoyable time to be had watching Creed 2 for it's surprising level of depth and heartfelt performances from everyone in the cast.
The cast all still manage to put in good performances and they make the very most of the material that they are all given. It is also cool to see Dolph Lundgren return to the iconic role of Ivan Drago after so many years. I also feel like the guy who plays Creed's opponent in the movie, Ivan Drago, deserves a shout out. He is played by real life boxer and hard-man Florian Munteanu and not only does he bring a magnificent physical presence to the role, but delivers some convincing confliction in the reasons he has for pursuing this goal of taking Creed's title and some genuinely emotional gravitas, he wasn't just the typical mean Rocky movie villain that you would expect.
The most disappointing thing about Creed 2 is the lacklustre filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, the direction, the cinematography and the lighting etc are perfectly serviceable and even come close to borderline exiting in a few rare spots. However, after that beautiful long take during Adonis' fight in Mexico and the other awesome imagery used in the first Creed, this just feels vastly formulaic as a follow up.
Overall, If you are a fan of the Rocky franchise like I am, then you have most likely already seen this anyway and if not, there isn't much here to merit me recommending it to a franchise newcomer and you would be much better served with the technically superior first Creed film. Still though, there is an enjoyable time to be had watching Creed 2 for it's surprising level of depth and heartfelt performances from everyone in the cast.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Virtually Amazing
Ready Player One by Ernest Cline is a novel with such intricate parts and such nostalgia it should be next to impossible to film. In the hands of most directors it would have failed, luckily for Warner Bros. and us as an audience the great Steven Spielberg stepped up. However is this massive task of bringing a world filled with wonder and excitement, too much for the veteran director?
Ready Player One follows Wade Watts in the year 2045, where the world is in decline and people fill their time in the OASIS, a virtual world where everything is possible and the only limits are people’s imagination. When the creator of the OASIS dies, he releases his will to challenge all the users of the OASIS to find his very own Easter Egg inside the game, whoever wins becomes the new owner.
The OASIS is filled with gaming and pop culture references that will always leave you with a smile of nostalgia. When we are transported to the OASIS, the computer animation and voice acting is pretty much spot on. A lot of the humour comes from Spielberg’s direction especially from when we see people in the real world reacting to the events within the OASIS. Without giving too much away there is a scene about halfway through that pays homage to one of the best horror movies of all time: this is the true highlight of the film that I’m sure everyone will enjoy.
In the real world, everyone gives a performance that they can be proud of, particularly Mark Rylance who plays James Halliday. Rylance’s performance is filled with wisdom and creativity but it’s clear to see the moments of vulnerability and clumsiness that could only be put across from a performer like Rylance. Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke give adequate performances that they can be proud of and prove that they can lead a film quite comfortably in the future. Simon Pegg also makes an appearance and although much more subtle then what you would expect from the actor, it pays off in an amazing way towards the end of the movie.
Where the film falls a bit short is in the real world. The OASIS is such a joy to explore because it has such elaborate details hidden within. When the film transitions back to the real world, however, it falls a bit flat because it’s not as fully explored. Being a dystopian world you would hope Spielberg would explore that a little more and answer questions about how it came to be.
The action sequences are very good in both the real world and the OASIS and have that classic Steven Spielberg touch you would expect. Although the script relishes in funny one-liners, these can sometimes become a little too cheesy in their delivery.
Steven Spielberg took on an impossible task and does justice to the novel and everyone should really appreciate the genius of the man. He’s created a world that everyone would dream to be part of, and I urge every person who is a fan of his work, or a major lover of pop culture to go and watch this epic tale. I would also like to plug the book, as it does differ from the film enough for you to give it a try, and you will not be disappointed if you enjoyed
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/22/ready-player-one-review-virtually-amazing/
Ready Player One follows Wade Watts in the year 2045, where the world is in decline and people fill their time in the OASIS, a virtual world where everything is possible and the only limits are people’s imagination. When the creator of the OASIS dies, he releases his will to challenge all the users of the OASIS to find his very own Easter Egg inside the game, whoever wins becomes the new owner.
The OASIS is filled with gaming and pop culture references that will always leave you with a smile of nostalgia. When we are transported to the OASIS, the computer animation and voice acting is pretty much spot on. A lot of the humour comes from Spielberg’s direction especially from when we see people in the real world reacting to the events within the OASIS. Without giving too much away there is a scene about halfway through that pays homage to one of the best horror movies of all time: this is the true highlight of the film that I’m sure everyone will enjoy.
In the real world, everyone gives a performance that they can be proud of, particularly Mark Rylance who plays James Halliday. Rylance’s performance is filled with wisdom and creativity but it’s clear to see the moments of vulnerability and clumsiness that could only be put across from a performer like Rylance. Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke give adequate performances that they can be proud of and prove that they can lead a film quite comfortably in the future. Simon Pegg also makes an appearance and although much more subtle then what you would expect from the actor, it pays off in an amazing way towards the end of the movie.
Where the film falls a bit short is in the real world. The OASIS is such a joy to explore because it has such elaborate details hidden within. When the film transitions back to the real world, however, it falls a bit flat because it’s not as fully explored. Being a dystopian world you would hope Spielberg would explore that a little more and answer questions about how it came to be.
The action sequences are very good in both the real world and the OASIS and have that classic Steven Spielberg touch you would expect. Although the script relishes in funny one-liners, these can sometimes become a little too cheesy in their delivery.
Steven Spielberg took on an impossible task and does justice to the novel and everyone should really appreciate the genius of the man. He’s created a world that everyone would dream to be part of, and I urge every person who is a fan of his work, or a major lover of pop culture to go and watch this epic tale. I would also like to plug the book, as it does differ from the film enough for you to give it a try, and you will not be disappointed if you enjoyed
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/22/ready-player-one-review-virtually-amazing/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 7, 2018
Good Enough
By my count, this is the 8th time that Sylvester Stallone has put on the character of Rocky Balboa. This time it comes after the resurgence of this character (and franchise) with the introduction of Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) and a script that allowed Stallone to explore the character in a way that he had not previously been able to - and garnered him a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his efforts.
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2020 (Updated Feb 18, 2020)
Tangled
I love the american verison of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". And even the Swedish series was good. But i like the american verison better. So what about this film, its dull. It cant live up to the pervious film/series. I give Clarie Foy credit she was good as Lisbeth, but both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara were both excellent as Lisbeth and Clarie was a step down from them. She was the only good part of this film. The plot, the supporting charcters, the twist, the action were all dull and cant live up to the pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
The Marinated Meeple (1848 KP) rated Jurassic Park (1993) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
The CGI (2 more)
The Special Effects
The Storytelling
The all time best dinosaur movie made so far....
This move is a great one and will hold up for many many years. They way the original king Kong holds up the groundbreaking special effects for the time are solid enough to fool people nowadays in a charming old fashioned way. Yes technology is evolving faster than dinosaurs ever did, but when something is made this well, it tends to age well, not poorly. Jaws is another example of aging well, yes we can see the flaws and the seems, but it doesn't matter. Yes I understand the science is flawed, but the premise is interesting, and the pseudo science is good enough to capture the imagination. And the imagination runs wild here like a T-Rex after a Jeep. It gobbled me up like a guy on a toilet. I still love to visit Isla Sorna. And plan to go back many many more times.
Fun Tidbit: All of the cast were given a Raptor model, signed by Steven Spielberg as a gift. It looked very frightening, and Ariana Richards has it in her house to shock anyone coming in, like a guard at the gate. Jeff Goldblum's model has a prime spot in his house and is a cherished object. Laura Dern put her Raptor model in her son's room near his crib. When he was older and saw it he screamed like never before. She had to put it in storage, but hopes one day, the two will be friends.
Here's 2 awesome movie posters:
Fun Tidbit: All of the cast were given a Raptor model, signed by Steven Spielberg as a gift. It looked very frightening, and Ariana Richards has it in her house to shock anyone coming in, like a guard at the gate. Jeff Goldblum's model has a prime spot in his house and is a cherished object. Laura Dern put her Raptor model in her son's room near his crib. When he was older and saw it he screamed like never before. She had to put it in storage, but hopes one day, the two will be friends.
Here's 2 awesome movie posters:
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Foreigner (2017) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
I Wanna Know What a Roaring Rampage of Revenge Is
Not-as-lighthearted-as-you-might-expect vehicle for Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan: Chan plays an ex-special forces restauranteur whose daughter is killed in a terrorist attack, Brosnan the IRA man turned politician whom he pursues for information about the men responsible.
Obviously there's a bit of an issue with audience expectations where these two guys are concerned, as this film is considerably heavier than the kind of thing either of them usually makes, and the subject matter of this film might be considered a bit iffy anyway - terrorist bombings and the IRA are not usually the stuff of a jolly evening's entertainment. (Given that Brosnan's character somewhat resembles real-life Irish republican leader Gerry Adams, I would imagine that the libel lawyers had a profitable time with this film, too.)
But, that said, both actors are actually rather good, and when the action sequences come Campbell handles them with his usual aplomb - note I say when, for this is much more of a straight thriller than a martial arts action movie (it's certainly not a comedy of any stripe). It's all a bit dour and you get a distinct whiff of it all having been made on a low budget, but everyone involved deserves credit for being prepared to do something a bit different and doing a decent job with it.
(No idea why there's a picture of Steven Seagal listed with this movie; I suspect there may be more than one film titled The Foreigner and there's been a mixup.)
Obviously there's a bit of an issue with audience expectations where these two guys are concerned, as this film is considerably heavier than the kind of thing either of them usually makes, and the subject matter of this film might be considered a bit iffy anyway - terrorist bombings and the IRA are not usually the stuff of a jolly evening's entertainment. (Given that Brosnan's character somewhat resembles real-life Irish republican leader Gerry Adams, I would imagine that the libel lawyers had a profitable time with this film, too.)
But, that said, both actors are actually rather good, and when the action sequences come Campbell handles them with his usual aplomb - note I say when, for this is much more of a straight thriller than a martial arts action movie (it's certainly not a comedy of any stripe). It's all a bit dour and you get a distinct whiff of it all having been made on a low budget, but everyone involved deserves credit for being prepared to do something a bit different and doing a decent job with it.
(No idea why there's a picture of Steven Seagal listed with this movie; I suspect there may be more than one film titled The Foreigner and there's been a mixup.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Laundromat (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2021
Fun and Interesting
Do remember the Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT from 2015, where Director Adam McKay would make sense out of a dry subject (the financial crisis of 2008) by breaking the 4th wall and speaking directly to the audience, while also wrapping in a very strong emotional drama?
Well…Director Steven Soderbergh (ERIN BROCKOVICH) has taken that recipe and attached it to another dry subject (this time money laundering through off-shore “Shell Companies”) and has turned in a very good and interesting (though not quite as intense) film that got lost in the shuffle in 2019.
Starring Meryl Streep as a widow who is trying to get her Insurance Company to pay off after the death of her husband, THE LAUNDROMAT follows the trail through shell company after shell company as the money is Laundered by 2 unscrupulous Bankers (Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas) in a series of vignettes.
While THE LAUNDROMAT doesn’t pack the punch of THE BIG SHORT (where the real life consequences of what happened impacted many, many people throughout the world), THE LAUNDROMAT falls just short in that only Meryl Streep’s character really suffers the consequences (though many unscrupulous players do get theirs in the end).
Soderbergh is a Director who’s work I have really, really liked throughout his career as he has a tendency to focus on the people, rather than spectacle, when telling a story, and it works well in this film. He gets the audience to care about the victims of the scheming money men and root like crazy for the “bad guys” to get theirs.
As for the acting, Meryl Streep (of course) is marvelous as Ellen Martin, the widow who’s tragic experience (the death of her husband - played by the great James Cromwell) sets off the course of events in this film.
Oldman and Banderas are equally as good as the narrators and antagonists of this piece. They play their roles with a slight wink in their eyes and a “devil-may-care” attitude which makes them charming, but does take a notch (or so) off of the drama of the piece.
Soderbergh, as he is want to do, fills this film with many memorable actors/characters in what amounts to extended cameos - Jeffrey Wright, Robert Patrick, David Schwimmer, Will Forte, Chris Parnell, Larry Wilmore and even Sharon Stone stop by for a moment to bring other characters into play and they all work well.
To be fair, some of the vignettes work better than the others, but all-in-all Soderbergh has crafted an interesting, fun and IMPORTANT film that will teach it’s audience about the inner workings of a system that most of us have heard about but never really looked into.
Check out THE LAUNDROMAT the next time you are scrolling through Netflix looking for something good to watch.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well…Director Steven Soderbergh (ERIN BROCKOVICH) has taken that recipe and attached it to another dry subject (this time money laundering through off-shore “Shell Companies”) and has turned in a very good and interesting (though not quite as intense) film that got lost in the shuffle in 2019.
Starring Meryl Streep as a widow who is trying to get her Insurance Company to pay off after the death of her husband, THE LAUNDROMAT follows the trail through shell company after shell company as the money is Laundered by 2 unscrupulous Bankers (Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas) in a series of vignettes.
While THE LAUNDROMAT doesn’t pack the punch of THE BIG SHORT (where the real life consequences of what happened impacted many, many people throughout the world), THE LAUNDROMAT falls just short in that only Meryl Streep’s character really suffers the consequences (though many unscrupulous players do get theirs in the end).
Soderbergh is a Director who’s work I have really, really liked throughout his career as he has a tendency to focus on the people, rather than spectacle, when telling a story, and it works well in this film. He gets the audience to care about the victims of the scheming money men and root like crazy for the “bad guys” to get theirs.
As for the acting, Meryl Streep (of course) is marvelous as Ellen Martin, the widow who’s tragic experience (the death of her husband - played by the great James Cromwell) sets off the course of events in this film.
Oldman and Banderas are equally as good as the narrators and antagonists of this piece. They play their roles with a slight wink in their eyes and a “devil-may-care” attitude which makes them charming, but does take a notch (or so) off of the drama of the piece.
Soderbergh, as he is want to do, fills this film with many memorable actors/characters in what amounts to extended cameos - Jeffrey Wright, Robert Patrick, David Schwimmer, Will Forte, Chris Parnell, Larry Wilmore and even Sharon Stone stop by for a moment to bring other characters into play and they all work well.
To be fair, some of the vignettes work better than the others, but all-in-all Soderbergh has crafted an interesting, fun and IMPORTANT film that will teach it’s audience about the inner workings of a system that most of us have heard about but never really looked into.
Check out THE LAUNDROMAT the next time you are scrolling through Netflix looking for something good to watch.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Micky Barnard (542 KP) rated Vox in Books
Dec 13, 2018
Thought provoking
There are many words that come to mind at the close of this book alongside a host of emotions. For one, I feel both unsettled and angry. This is a profound and scary read with a potential realism that should make any woman or man, for that matter, look over their political shoulder. I am a political animal so this book took my worries about misogyny and ran them to worse-case scenario.
Imagine a world where a misogynistic man is voted into power in the US (hold on, that sounds familiar) and over a relatively short period of time women are silenced. That is all I am going to say to the context of the story because it makes great, chilling reading.
The heroine, Dr Jean McClellan, a neurolinguist finds herself at home, running the house and so damn angry. Angry at her husband, her son and most of all at the powers that be. It is an utterly fascinating tale, somewhat imperfect at wrap-up but nonetheless absorbing. The parallel story of Jean's son, Steven was one of the most powerful elements of this story for me about how impressionable children/young people could potentially be brainwashed. I really liked where this particular element ended up.
There are some strong male characters in the book, some good, some bad and some weak but trying to be better. I appreciated the mixture and it felt real.
So, if you want to be challenged, if you like a story that mirrors contemporary times and moves it on fantastically, then this might be a read for you. In the meantime, I'll be creating a new genre over here called dystopian-realism.
I voluntarily read an early copy of this book.
Imagine a world where a misogynistic man is voted into power in the US (hold on, that sounds familiar) and over a relatively short period of time women are silenced. That is all I am going to say to the context of the story because it makes great, chilling reading.
The heroine, Dr Jean McClellan, a neurolinguist finds herself at home, running the house and so damn angry. Angry at her husband, her son and most of all at the powers that be. It is an utterly fascinating tale, somewhat imperfect at wrap-up but nonetheless absorbing. The parallel story of Jean's son, Steven was one of the most powerful elements of this story for me about how impressionable children/young people could potentially be brainwashed. I really liked where this particular element ended up.
There are some strong male characters in the book, some good, some bad and some weak but trying to be better. I appreciated the mixture and it felt real.
So, if you want to be challenged, if you like a story that mirrors contemporary times and moves it on fantastically, then this might be a read for you. In the meantime, I'll be creating a new genre over here called dystopian-realism.
I voluntarily read an early copy of this book.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) Dec 14, 2018