Search

Search only in certain items:

    Toddler Counting 123

    Toddler Counting 123

    Education and Games

    (0 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    "simple and well executed with straightforward menus and good graphics." -- The New York Times ...

    Candy Blast Mania

    Candy Blast Mania

    Games and Entertainment

    (0 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    Candy Blast Mania is a match 3 puzzle game where you can match and collect candies in this...

    Wild und Hund Revierwelt

    Wild und Hund Revierwelt

    Sports and Navigation

    (0 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    Enjoy the unity of hunting and nature in combination with the most modern communications technology....

Bad Boys for Life (2020)
Bad Boys for Life (2020)
2020 | Action, Comedy, Crime
Entertaining "shoot-em-up" with 2 charismatic leads
Okay - I gotta admit, I never saw the first two BAD BOYS films starring Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, but I pretty much got the gist of it through the advertisements, so when these 2 re-united for a 3rd film (set 17 years after BAD BOYS II), I figured I would skip this one as well. But...as life would have it...I ended up attending this film - with a giant attitude of "this is gonna stink" to accompany me.

And...I was wrong. I was really, really entertained by this film.

BAD BOYS FOR LIFE presents Martin Lawrence's Det. Marcus Burnett and Will Smith's Det. Mike Lowry still "in the game". One wants to keep working and the other is looking to retire (if you take a look at the picture, you can figure out which one is which). The two battle like an old married couple while taking on some crooks in "shoot 'em up" action scenes.

And...what's not to like about that? Smith and Lawrence still have strong chemistry on the screen and the action scenes - staged by new (to me) Directors Adil and Bilall - keep things moving at a quick enough pace, not too fast that you get a headache, but not too slow that you start punching a hole in the plot.

And...as is typical of these types of films...the plot is paper thin and just is a reason to have these 2 banter and to have shoot-em-up scenes.

But that doesn't matter.

Ably helping the boys out is their put-upon Captain (the always watchable Joe Pantaliano reprising his role from the previous 2 films) and the members of the "AMMO SQUAD". These are young cops who are set up to replace our 2 heroes. Normally, this band of youngsters would be arrogant a-holes who end up being too cocky and are outwitted by our heroes, but this film puts that convention on it's ear and the "Ammo Squad" are actually a pretty good addition to this film series.

The filmmakers left the door wide open for BAD BOYS 4 and...I can't believe I'm saying this...I'm actually looking forward to it! Certainly not an Oscar contender, but an entertaining "blow-em-up" with 2 charismatic leads that play off each other well. Everyone involved knew exactly what type of film they were making - so they made that movie, with no apologies.

Letter Grade: a solid B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
40x40

Lee (2222 KP) Jan 18, 2020

I haven’t seen the first two movies and I’m booked to see this one later on so it’s good to read your review 👍🏻

The Front Runner (2018)
The Front Runner (2018)
2018 | Biography, Drama
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.

“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.

A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.

Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).

Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?

The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.

“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!

Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.

When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)

Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.

It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.

Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.