Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Line Of Duty - Season 4 in TV
May 13, 2019
Excellent yet again
To say that I’ve binge watched the first 4 series of Line of Duty in less than month says a lot about how good it really is. And what’s better is that the standards just never seem to drop, which is pretty impressive.
Can’t say much without revealing any spoilers, but this is an engrossing and entertaining series. There isn’t as much ambiguity in this as there is in some of the earlier series, but it’s still fascinating to watch it all unfold. And to have Thandie Newton guest star is a real bonus, she’s fantastic as Roz Huntley. The plot itself only further expands and unveils new mysteries as well as wrapping up some earlier characters and storylines. My only issue is that I have no idea what I’m going to watch after seeing the next series!
Can’t say much without revealing any spoilers, but this is an engrossing and entertaining series. There isn’t as much ambiguity in this as there is in some of the earlier series, but it’s still fascinating to watch it all unfold. And to have Thandie Newton guest star is a real bonus, she’s fantastic as Roz Huntley. The plot itself only further expands and unveils new mysteries as well as wrapping up some earlier characters and storylines. My only issue is that I have no idea what I’m going to watch after seeing the next series!
David McK (3185 KP) rated Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2023)
I'm writing this in early 2021.
I don't think I'd seen this film since the early noughties.
If you asked me what I remember of it, I probably would have said
Thandie Newton
Masks
Slow motion. Lot and lots of slow motion.
And that is actually pretty accurate: directed by John Woo, this has an overabundance of Slo-Mo shots and has Tom Cruise and Ving Rhames both reprising their role from the first film.
It's also slightly uncomfortable watching this now (with the world still in the grip of a global pandemic), as the driver for the plot is - guess what - a deadly virus getting loose.
(oh, and in one of cinemas great 'what if' : I believe that Dougray Scott had to turn down the role of Wolverine as he was busy filming this)
I don't think I'd seen this film since the early noughties.
If you asked me what I remember of it, I probably would have said
Thandie Newton
Masks
Slow motion. Lot and lots of slow motion.
And that is actually pretty accurate: directed by John Woo, this has an overabundance of Slo-Mo shots and has Tom Cruise and Ving Rhames both reprising their role from the first film.
It's also slightly uncomfortable watching this now (with the world still in the grip of a global pandemic), as the driver for the plot is - guess what - a deadly virus getting loose.
(oh, and in one of cinemas great 'what if' : I believe that Dougray Scott had to turn down the role of Wolverine as he was busy filming this)
Line Of Duty
8.8
Rate It
TV Show Watch
Line of Duty is a BBC police procedural television series created by Jed Mercurio starring Martin...
Beyond The Call Of Duty: Untold Stories of Britain's Bravest Police Officers
Book
The book used by Thandie Newton to research her part in Line of Duty. A lone policewoman disarms a...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Sep 12, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
In brief - movie about the world ending makes you wish that the world was ending
Let's be honest - many, if not all natural disaster films are viewed purely for the spectacle. No one is settling down to watch one of these things with the intention of watching some layered character arc, or listen to a fantastic script - 2012 is no different.
The above mentioned spectacle is very formulaic here, as crazy set piece is followed by crazy set piece, complimented with in between scenes of a just-doing-it-for-the-pay-check John Cusack, and his exceptionally boring family (who all somehow manage to be in the exact place of disasters kicking off multiple times).
The scenes of mayhem themselves are laced with Benny Hill-esque antics, and silly dialogue that instantly removes any tension.
As our band of irritatingly mundane survivors trudge through our planet literally cracking apart, they come across a host of 'wacky' characters, who all seem to be jostling for the part of comic relief (not every character needs to be comic relief Roland). And I really wanted pretty much everyone of these characters to just hurry up and get killed by a tornado or whatever.
I did however quite enjoy Woody Harrelson's batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and his gratuitous pickle eating.
It's also always nice to see the likes of Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor, even if they're not given much to do here but look all serious.
The CGI is just about starting to age at this point but is still mostly passable, and they're are some pretty memorable visuals here and there.
Overall though 2012 is pretty awful and really not as fun as it thinks it is.
The above mentioned spectacle is very formulaic here, as crazy set piece is followed by crazy set piece, complimented with in between scenes of a just-doing-it-for-the-pay-check John Cusack, and his exceptionally boring family (who all somehow manage to be in the exact place of disasters kicking off multiple times).
The scenes of mayhem themselves are laced with Benny Hill-esque antics, and silly dialogue that instantly removes any tension.
As our band of irritatingly mundane survivors trudge through our planet literally cracking apart, they come across a host of 'wacky' characters, who all seem to be jostling for the part of comic relief (not every character needs to be comic relief Roland). And I really wanted pretty much everyone of these characters to just hurry up and get killed by a tornado or whatever.
I did however quite enjoy Woody Harrelson's batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and his gratuitous pickle eating.
It's also always nice to see the likes of Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor, even if they're not given much to do here but look all serious.
The CGI is just about starting to age at this point but is still mostly passable, and they're are some pretty memorable visuals here and there.
Overall though 2012 is pretty awful and really not as fun as it thinks it is.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Roland Emmerich has done it again. He seems to get a kick out of bringing out humanities worst fears and putting them on screen in all its glory. After destroying a large part of the world in Independence Day: ID4, and trashing New York with Godzilla, he decides to go the rest of the way and change the face of the earth forever and in the process kill off most of humanity. What is the enemy this time? Aliens? Nope done that. Monsters? Nope also done that. Bad weather? Once again done that. What is left? I know lets have the sun spit out solar flares that heat up the earth's core and destabilize the planet! Whatever his problem with humanity is, it translates well on to film. This is an epic disaster movie. No part of the world is safe and there is no magic quick fix here.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Mar 26, 2020
Let's be honest, Solo was getting un-earnt hate from the minute it was announced. "No one asked for this" was thrown around often. "It's not Harrison Ford" was another one, and as a result, it was met in release with a fair amount of vitriol, and underperformed at the box office (apparently, still made shit tons of money...)
This is a great shame in my opinion. Solo isn't a perfect film by any means but it's still a fun and enjoyable sci-fi adventure.
Seeming as the plot revolves mainly around Han Solo, who of course is a huge staple character in the original trilogy, set after this one, the stakes are relatively low, and this gives the film room to relax a present us with what is essentially a heist movie, just one thats set in the Star Wars universe.
Alden Ehrenreich is fine as the titular Solo. He isn't trying to just copy Harrison Ford, but still provides something that feels familiar, whilst giving his own take on the character.
Donald Glover is pitch perfect as a young Lando Calrissian, and is arguably the highlight cast member.
It's great to have the likes of Thandie Newton and Woody Harrelson involved as well.
As I've said in my GoT reviews, I've always struggled to full get on board with Emilia Clarke, and it's no different here. She's just kind of there, and I honestly feel that the film wouldn't have suffered to greatly without her character.
My main gripe with Solo is the constant need to over explain everything - ever wondered how Han got his blaster and jacket? No? Well tough shit because we're going to tell you! Ever wondered where he got those dice that hang in the Millennium Falcon for like two seconds in one of the films? No? Shut up and watch dammit. Ever wondered why Han's second name is Solo? No? Well fuck you, because you're about to find out (and it's horribly cringey) Ever wanted to see what the Kessel Run is that Han spoke about once in the history of Star Wars? Well, maybe, kind of, but surprise, ITS A BIG CGI SQUID HAHAHA.
Any mystery and intrigue that you may have about Han Solo is explained away in incessant detail to the point where it becomes quickly tiresome. Not everything needs a back story dammit.
Honestly though, Solo could have been soooo much worse, but as it happens, it actually decent. It's not perfect as I mentioned, but I would happily take it over episodes 8 and 9. If you're one is those fans who have just straight up refused to watch it for some reason, stop being a silly goose and give it a go.
This is a great shame in my opinion. Solo isn't a perfect film by any means but it's still a fun and enjoyable sci-fi adventure.
Seeming as the plot revolves mainly around Han Solo, who of course is a huge staple character in the original trilogy, set after this one, the stakes are relatively low, and this gives the film room to relax a present us with what is essentially a heist movie, just one thats set in the Star Wars universe.
Alden Ehrenreich is fine as the titular Solo. He isn't trying to just copy Harrison Ford, but still provides something that feels familiar, whilst giving his own take on the character.
Donald Glover is pitch perfect as a young Lando Calrissian, and is arguably the highlight cast member.
It's great to have the likes of Thandie Newton and Woody Harrelson involved as well.
As I've said in my GoT reviews, I've always struggled to full get on board with Emilia Clarke, and it's no different here. She's just kind of there, and I honestly feel that the film wouldn't have suffered to greatly without her character.
My main gripe with Solo is the constant need to over explain everything - ever wondered how Han got his blaster and jacket? No? Well tough shit because we're going to tell you! Ever wondered where he got those dice that hang in the Millennium Falcon for like two seconds in one of the films? No? Shut up and watch dammit. Ever wondered why Han's second name is Solo? No? Well fuck you, because you're about to find out (and it's horribly cringey) Ever wanted to see what the Kessel Run is that Han spoke about once in the history of Star Wars? Well, maybe, kind of, but surprise, ITS A BIG CGI SQUID HAHAHA.
Any mystery and intrigue that you may have about Han Solo is explained away in incessant detail to the point where it becomes quickly tiresome. Not everything needs a back story dammit.
Honestly though, Solo could have been soooo much worse, but as it happens, it actually decent. It's not perfect as I mentioned, but I would happily take it over episodes 8 and 9. If you're one is those fans who have just straight up refused to watch it for some reason, stop being a silly goose and give it a go.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Reminiscence (2021) in Movies
Aug 24, 2021
Needed a better Director - like one of the Nolan boys
Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest Directors of our time usually making films that have an attribute of time in them. His brother, Jonathan Nolan, has had a hand in most of his brother’s terrific works as well as the creative force behind such “trippy” TV series as PERSON OF INTEREST and the recent revival of WESTWORLD. In both of these TV Series, Jonathan Nolan was assisted by his wife, Lisa Joy.
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)