Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Michael Myers has returned, again! But this time it’s personal. Halloween II is the brainchild of Rob Zombie who directed the remake of the 1978 John Carpenter original.
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 3, 2022
When audiences last saw Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) he had accidentally opened a portal into
other universe or as they are known, Multiverses in an attempt to help Spider-man.
In the new Marvel film “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” the Sorcerer finds himself disturbed by dreams of himself and a mysterious girl battling an evil presence but something about it does not seem right and he puts it down to conflicted feelings over attending the wedding of his ex-Christine (Rachel McAdams).
Before he can fully process his feelings, Strange is soon battling a giant creature that appears to be trying to capture the very girl from his dreams. With the help of Wong (Benedict Wong), they are able to save the day and learn that the girl whose name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) has an uncontrolled ability to travel across the Multiverse and that a demon is after her as he wants her powers for himself.
Facing a threat to their very existence, the group seeks the help of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olson) and attempts to convince the former Avenger to aid them. Things take a very dark turn soon after as the true nature of the threat facing them comes to light and Strange and America flees into the Multiverse in an attempt to save the universe as they know it.
The film hits the ground running with a great action sequence which is followed a bit later by another before it becomes a bit bogged down in metaphysical and multi-dimensional conversations. Thankfully the strong characters help hold your interest during the slower parts of the film and the finale plays out well giving fans the action and character development that they would want.
Much has been made about the cameos in the film and while I will confirm that they are there I will not spoil them and I will say that several of the wilder theories are not true.
Director Sam Raimi has made a triumphant return to Super Hero movies as this outing combines what fans expect from a comic book-based film and blends it with supernatural horror to create a darker and more intense Marvel film than many have been used to.
The effects in the film are top-notch but it is the strong performances that drive the film not the effects and the movie opens up so many possibilities for the future. There are two bonus scenes in the credits and a promise that Doctor Strange will return. It has been reported that Marvel Producer Kevin Feige and his team have already plotted out the next ten years of Marvel films beyond what has already been announced and I cannot wait to see where they go next as Marvel has once again shown that by giving fans inter-connected stories that are well-planned and part of a living-universe, or in this case Multiverse, that they have plenty of material to come.
4 stars out of 5
other universe or as they are known, Multiverses in an attempt to help Spider-man.
In the new Marvel film “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” the Sorcerer finds himself disturbed by dreams of himself and a mysterious girl battling an evil presence but something about it does not seem right and he puts it down to conflicted feelings over attending the wedding of his ex-Christine (Rachel McAdams).
Before he can fully process his feelings, Strange is soon battling a giant creature that appears to be trying to capture the very girl from his dreams. With the help of Wong (Benedict Wong), they are able to save the day and learn that the girl whose name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) has an uncontrolled ability to travel across the Multiverse and that a demon is after her as he wants her powers for himself.
Facing a threat to their very existence, the group seeks the help of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olson) and attempts to convince the former Avenger to aid them. Things take a very dark turn soon after as the true nature of the threat facing them comes to light and Strange and America flees into the Multiverse in an attempt to save the universe as they know it.
The film hits the ground running with a great action sequence which is followed a bit later by another before it becomes a bit bogged down in metaphysical and multi-dimensional conversations. Thankfully the strong characters help hold your interest during the slower parts of the film and the finale plays out well giving fans the action and character development that they would want.
Much has been made about the cameos in the film and while I will confirm that they are there I will not spoil them and I will say that several of the wilder theories are not true.
Director Sam Raimi has made a triumphant return to Super Hero movies as this outing combines what fans expect from a comic book-based film and blends it with supernatural horror to create a darker and more intense Marvel film than many have been used to.
The effects in the film are top-notch but it is the strong performances that drive the film not the effects and the movie opens up so many possibilities for the future. There are two bonus scenes in the credits and a promise that Doctor Strange will return. It has been reported that Marvel Producer Kevin Feige and his team have already plotted out the next ten years of Marvel films beyond what has already been announced and I cannot wait to see where they go next as Marvel has once again shown that by giving fans inter-connected stories that are well-planned and part of a living-universe, or in this case Multiverse, that they have plenty of material to come.
4 stars out of 5
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Trading Places (1983) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Great 80's Comedy
The Duke Brothers, kings of the stock exchange, wager a bet on whether or not a poor man with no experience can succeed in running their brokerage firm. It's a solid comedy that relies on human nature to help tell its story.
Acting: 10
A mixture of familiar faces and a few fresh ones, performances are stellar from top to bottom. It's what you expect when true professionals come together to put on a show. Eddie Murphy's comedic timing is on point as always, playing the role of homeless man Billy Ray Valentine. Just listening to him tell his story in prison about the Quart of Blood Technique had me in stitches. He has a way of being funny in a nonchalant way, reminding me of some of my closest friends.
Denholm Elliott won my heart as the lovable butler Coleman. He's kindhearted, but can be hilariously cruel at the same time. A lot of his laughs came from watching his subtle actions (rolling his eyes after a phone call, sneaking a drink during a party, etc.).
Dan Aykroyd won me over as well in his role as rich snob Louis Winthorpe III. I hated his guts at first but ultimately came to sympathize with his character which was the whole idea. He wore the role of proud rich kid well, but excelled when it came time for him to get crazy.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film opens with a multitude of shots that captures the heart of Philadelphia so well. I've only visited the city once and seeing those opening shots made me want to go back. Other very memorable scenes include the party at Valentine's home (absolute bedlam) and the calamity that is the trading room floor. Just seeing all those bodies pressing in on each other is enough to make you claustrophobic.
Favorite Still Shot: Valentine laying on the ground with almost a dozen cops pointing their guns just inches from his face. That one shot has been a feature in so many film montages over the years and deservedly so. That smile Murphy delivers saying, "I give up" is timeless.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 9
Trading Places still holds up all these years later as a classic comedy. It's hilarious but it also gives you pause for thought as well about the class and race roles in society. Sure it can be absolutely farfetched at times, but it's sole purpose is seemingly not just to entertain, but to raise awareness as well. It's been a few days since I've seen the film yet it still sticks out in my head amongst others.
Pace: 8
Plot: 8
As the plot unfolded, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous...Until I started thinking about today's political landscape and considered, "Hmmm, this is exactly the kind of experiment I could see a rich person with a lot of time on their hands concocting." It isn't all the way believable, but I tend to make exceptions for action films and comedies.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 81
I like Trading Places way more than I expected to. Director John Landis does an excellent job of walking the line between funny and thought-provoking, sometimes even daring to mix the two. Very solid film.
Acting: 10
A mixture of familiar faces and a few fresh ones, performances are stellar from top to bottom. It's what you expect when true professionals come together to put on a show. Eddie Murphy's comedic timing is on point as always, playing the role of homeless man Billy Ray Valentine. Just listening to him tell his story in prison about the Quart of Blood Technique had me in stitches. He has a way of being funny in a nonchalant way, reminding me of some of my closest friends.
Denholm Elliott won my heart as the lovable butler Coleman. He's kindhearted, but can be hilariously cruel at the same time. A lot of his laughs came from watching his subtle actions (rolling his eyes after a phone call, sneaking a drink during a party, etc.).
Dan Aykroyd won me over as well in his role as rich snob Louis Winthorpe III. I hated his guts at first but ultimately came to sympathize with his character which was the whole idea. He wore the role of proud rich kid well, but excelled when it came time for him to get crazy.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film opens with a multitude of shots that captures the heart of Philadelphia so well. I've only visited the city once and seeing those opening shots made me want to go back. Other very memorable scenes include the party at Valentine's home (absolute bedlam) and the calamity that is the trading room floor. Just seeing all those bodies pressing in on each other is enough to make you claustrophobic.
Favorite Still Shot: Valentine laying on the ground with almost a dozen cops pointing their guns just inches from his face. That one shot has been a feature in so many film montages over the years and deservedly so. That smile Murphy delivers saying, "I give up" is timeless.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 9
Trading Places still holds up all these years later as a classic comedy. It's hilarious but it also gives you pause for thought as well about the class and race roles in society. Sure it can be absolutely farfetched at times, but it's sole purpose is seemingly not just to entertain, but to raise awareness as well. It's been a few days since I've seen the film yet it still sticks out in my head amongst others.
Pace: 8
Plot: 8
As the plot unfolded, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous...Until I started thinking about today's political landscape and considered, "Hmmm, this is exactly the kind of experiment I could see a rich person with a lot of time on their hands concocting." It isn't all the way believable, but I tend to make exceptions for action films and comedies.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 81
I like Trading Places way more than I expected to. Director John Landis does an excellent job of walking the line between funny and thought-provoking, sometimes even daring to mix the two. Very solid film.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
iMaps+ for Google Maps ™ and Street View ™ : Transit and Offline Contacts
Navigation and Travel
App
iMaps+ brings Google powered search, directions and Street View™ to your iOS device. Powered by...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Night House (2020) in Movies
Aug 23, 2021
Rebecca Hall - outstanding (1 more)
Nicely vague script: leaves a lot to interpret
This one really creeped me out
Positives:
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Fourth Monkey (4MK Thriller, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<img src="https://bookbumzuky.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/4mk-giveaway-v2.png"; width="430" height="430" alt="win the book!"/>
<a href="https://bookbum.co.uk/2017/06/27/4mk/">WIN A HARDBACK COPY OF THE BOOK HERE!</a> (UK only)
------
I had so many opinions running through my head when I was reading this. At first I was excited and intrigued to find out more, then I was slightly reluctant to read it towards the middle (though I think factors outside of the book were influencing my opinion at that point) and then by the end I was super eager to finish it (in a good way) and see where it went.
This is a fast paced thriller thats going to keep you rooted to your seat. I, unfortunately, had so much to do while reading this book (work and personal life) that I wasnt able to sit and read huge chunks of it and I think thats why I got a little slow to reading it towards the middle. If youre going to read this book, my advice is to free up some of your time so you can bulk read it, otherwise some of the more shocking revelations and continuous fast paced action wont have its desired effect.
The first thing I loved about this novel is the fact that our protagonist is an older man, not some sprightly new thing coming straight out of police school. It was nice to have that less popular character as our hero. The second thing I loved was the Diary entries. I (mainly) love books that jump back and forth between past and present so when these skin crawlingly creepy diary entries started, I was pumped! They never let me down, through the entire thing they were disturbing and really added something to the novel.
My only complaint? Well, this was a buddy read with my pal Annie @ The Misstery, and we knew who 4MK was the moment we met them. Kind of a bummer but at the same time it was quite fun to see if we were actually going to be right or not (we were). It was still good fun to find out how everything came together in the end.
Overall, I really enjoyed this novel and Im already excited to see another book in the series will be out next year. The ending lines of the novel are chilling and I cant wait for them to be followed up!
<i>Thanks to HQ for sending me a copy of the book in exchange for an honest review!</i>
<a href="https://bookbum.co.uk/2017/06/27/4mk/">WIN A HARDBACK COPY OF THE BOOK HERE!</a> (UK only)
------
I had so many opinions running through my head when I was reading this. At first I was excited and intrigued to find out more, then I was slightly reluctant to read it towards the middle (though I think factors outside of the book were influencing my opinion at that point) and then by the end I was super eager to finish it (in a good way) and see where it went.
This is a fast paced thriller thats going to keep you rooted to your seat. I, unfortunately, had so much to do while reading this book (work and personal life) that I wasnt able to sit and read huge chunks of it and I think thats why I got a little slow to reading it towards the middle. If youre going to read this book, my advice is to free up some of your time so you can bulk read it, otherwise some of the more shocking revelations and continuous fast paced action wont have its desired effect.
The first thing I loved about this novel is the fact that our protagonist is an older man, not some sprightly new thing coming straight out of police school. It was nice to have that less popular character as our hero. The second thing I loved was the Diary entries. I (mainly) love books that jump back and forth between past and present so when these skin crawlingly creepy diary entries started, I was pumped! They never let me down, through the entire thing they were disturbing and really added something to the novel.
My only complaint? Well, this was a buddy read with my pal Annie @ The Misstery, and we knew who 4MK was the moment we met them. Kind of a bummer but at the same time it was quite fun to see if we were actually going to be right or not (we were). It was still good fun to find out how everything came together in the end.
Overall, I really enjoyed this novel and Im already excited to see another book in the series will be out next year. The ending lines of the novel are chilling and I cant wait for them to be followed up!
<i>Thanks to HQ for sending me a copy of the book in exchange for an honest review!</i>
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Dreamland in Books
Jan 6, 2020
"Dreamland" by Sarah Dessen tells the story of Caitlin O'Koren as she navigates her first love with a boy named Rogerson as her family is going through the crisis of her older sister Cass running away. Caitlin finds a home in Rogerson when her parents start to treat Caitlin like Cass, putting her schedule on the refrigerator, going to every game Caitlin cheers at, packing snacks for the team. But when Caitlin discovers that Rogerson isn't the man she met in the parking lot that night, she starts to pull away from those closest to her - ditching school, avoiding her best friend, missing cheer practice, smoking weed, pushing her parents away. Caitlin then has to figure out what's more important, her relationship with Rogerson or her relationship with her friends and family.
I loved this novel. I think it was beautifully written. When the ball drops about Rogerson and Caitlin's relationship, you don't expect it at all. You are so involved in the book and the characters, rooting for the relationship, wondering if Cass is going to come home, questioning Caitlin's parent's motives, that when it all happens, it feels like it's not only happening to Caitlin, but to you too. I think that Sarah Dessen did a wonderful job of putting this type of relationship on paper and having it be relatable while still being realistic.
In contrast, I didn't like how rushed the ending was. There's this point of 2 to 3 pages being a couple weeks to a month long and it just feels rushed. I wish I could've gotten a little more development when it came to the end of the novel, but I don't think it injured the story or the plotline in any way. Secondly, I wish there was more character development on Rogerson. I think that for someone that Caitlin is supposedly in love with, we don't really know much about him. And maybe that's because he just naturally wasn't very open with Caitlin, or if that was the author's choice. Either way, I wish there was a little more.
I would 1000% recommend this book to young adults as well as adults. I think that this novel does a wonderful job of giving you an insight into unhealthy relationships and shows how hard they are to get out of. Without revealing too much, I think that this book could really start a conversation.
I loved this novel. I think it was beautifully written. When the ball drops about Rogerson and Caitlin's relationship, you don't expect it at all. You are so involved in the book and the characters, rooting for the relationship, wondering if Cass is going to come home, questioning Caitlin's parent's motives, that when it all happens, it feels like it's not only happening to Caitlin, but to you too. I think that Sarah Dessen did a wonderful job of putting this type of relationship on paper and having it be relatable while still being realistic.
In contrast, I didn't like how rushed the ending was. There's this point of 2 to 3 pages being a couple weeks to a month long and it just feels rushed. I wish I could've gotten a little more development when it came to the end of the novel, but I don't think it injured the story or the plotline in any way. Secondly, I wish there was more character development on Rogerson. I think that for someone that Caitlin is supposedly in love with, we don't really know much about him. And maybe that's because he just naturally wasn't very open with Caitlin, or if that was the author's choice. Either way, I wish there was a little more.
I would 1000% recommend this book to young adults as well as adults. I think that this novel does a wonderful job of giving you an insight into unhealthy relationships and shows how hard they are to get out of. Without revealing too much, I think that this book could really start a conversation.