Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated CODA (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2022
Fairly Standard Fare
I am a film completionist, meaning I must see a film through to the end no matter what. At times, I take a break and come back to it (figuring I might not have been in the right mood for the film) but in other times, I fight through whatever emotion I am feeling (most of the time boredom) to keep focused on what the filmmakers are attempting to do in their film - and, at times, I am rewarded for this perseverance.
Such is the case with the Oscar Nominated film CODA. Written and Directed by Sian Heder (who was Oscar Nominated for her Screenplay), CODA tells the tale of Ruby who is a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults), who runs afoul of her family (especially her parents) and their expectations of her.
For the first half of this film it is pretty standard fare - one that has been shown on many, many movie screens throughout the years. Even though this one had the added “plot twist” of Ruby being able to hear while her Parents and Brothers are all deaf, the first half of this film never rose above the ordinary.
But, something happened in the 2nd half of the film, I fell in love with this family and their foibles and was rooting for them all to resolve their issues and for Ruby to get what she wanted.
Credit for this must go to Writer/Director Heder, who is not deaf, who came up with the idea/concept for the film and then felt a strong obligation to “get it right” for the deaf community. And get it right she does.
Her first good move was to cast Oscar Winner Marlee Matlin, a well known deaf performer and advocate for the Deaf Community. She brought instant credibility and star power to this film and she also insisted that the other 2 deaf characters in this film be performed by deaf performers.
Troy Kotsur is Oscar Nominated as Best Supporting Actor for his turn as Ruby’s father and he, for the first 1/2 of this film, acts in black and white - either funny (the comic relief) or angry (the drama) and I was unimpressed by him, but - just like the film - his performance gains some nuance in the 2nd half and he does have the “Oscar Moment” in this part of the movie that makes him a deserving nominee.
Emilia Jones is “just fine” in the lead role of Ruby and Daniel Durant (the other deaf actor in this film who plays her brother) and Lonnie Farmer (who plays her teacher) are also “fine”. Thank goodness we had the star wattage of Matlin to elevate the first half of the film before things got interesting - and nuanced - in the 2nd half.
Kudos to CODA for shining a light on a group that does not normally get the light shone upon it and kudos to the Academy for nominating this Sundance darling in the Best Picture category.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the Oscar Nominated film CODA. Written and Directed by Sian Heder (who was Oscar Nominated for her Screenplay), CODA tells the tale of Ruby who is a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults), who runs afoul of her family (especially her parents) and their expectations of her.
For the first half of this film it is pretty standard fare - one that has been shown on many, many movie screens throughout the years. Even though this one had the added “plot twist” of Ruby being able to hear while her Parents and Brothers are all deaf, the first half of this film never rose above the ordinary.
But, something happened in the 2nd half of the film, I fell in love with this family and their foibles and was rooting for them all to resolve their issues and for Ruby to get what she wanted.
Credit for this must go to Writer/Director Heder, who is not deaf, who came up with the idea/concept for the film and then felt a strong obligation to “get it right” for the deaf community. And get it right she does.
Her first good move was to cast Oscar Winner Marlee Matlin, a well known deaf performer and advocate for the Deaf Community. She brought instant credibility and star power to this film and she also insisted that the other 2 deaf characters in this film be performed by deaf performers.
Troy Kotsur is Oscar Nominated as Best Supporting Actor for his turn as Ruby’s father and he, for the first 1/2 of this film, acts in black and white - either funny (the comic relief) or angry (the drama) and I was unimpressed by him, but - just like the film - his performance gains some nuance in the 2nd half and he does have the “Oscar Moment” in this part of the movie that makes him a deserving nominee.
Emilia Jones is “just fine” in the lead role of Ruby and Daniel Durant (the other deaf actor in this film who plays her brother) and Lonnie Farmer (who plays her teacher) are also “fine”. Thank goodness we had the star wattage of Matlin to elevate the first half of the film before things got interesting - and nuanced - in the 2nd half.
Kudos to CODA for shining a light on a group that does not normally get the light shone upon it and kudos to the Academy for nominating this Sundance darling in the Best Picture category.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1976) in Movies
Jun 30, 2020
Decent, But Hoped For More
When a local singer is discovered by a big time star, she finds that her time in the spotlight isn’t all she expected it to be.
Acting: 10
While I wasn’t in love with Barbara Streisand’s lead role of Esther Hoffman, she did alright for the most part. I’ll just say it was a little bit better than bearable. I’m never one to say an actor has to knock it out of the park, but they can’t be so bad as to take me out of the movie. For any of her shortcomings Kris Kristofferson made up for it playing the alcoholic musician John Norman Howard. He definitely carries the chemistry between the two.
Beginning: 10
Solid kickoff as you are immediately engaged with John’s character and his shortcomings as a man. You can see this guy is a trainwreck and anyone that gets close to him will probably be brought down too. While I have seen the previous two versions before this one, it made me interested to see how they would tackle his struggles.
Characters: 8
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
For what it’s worth, I did like what director Frank R. Pierson did in showing Esther’s life at home versus what the glamorous life looked like. Before she makes it big, and even in some of the quieter moments, there is peace, shots of calm and quiet. The road life is an entirely different animal, however, as heaps of fans cheer her on at every turn and you can feel just how overwhelming it is. I appreciated that stark contrast.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 7
Throughout its 141-minute duration, A Star is Born definitely has its shining spots. Who doesn’t love a good rags to riches story? In a twist you can see coming for some time, this is a rags to riches to mortal endings story. I enjoyed watching her rise to stardom although some parts were truly unbearable with John’s character being such a total anus. It was over-the-top at times and took some of the enjoyment away.
Memorability: 2
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Resolution: 4
Overall: 72
Of the four versions, this is hands-down the weakest A Star is Born. It’s not a horrible movie and I definitely wouldn’t steer someone away from checking it out at least once. For me, it just doesn’t stand the test of time.
Acting: 10
While I wasn’t in love with Barbara Streisand’s lead role of Esther Hoffman, she did alright for the most part. I’ll just say it was a little bit better than bearable. I’m never one to say an actor has to knock it out of the park, but they can’t be so bad as to take me out of the movie. For any of her shortcomings Kris Kristofferson made up for it playing the alcoholic musician John Norman Howard. He definitely carries the chemistry between the two.
Beginning: 10
Solid kickoff as you are immediately engaged with John’s character and his shortcomings as a man. You can see this guy is a trainwreck and anyone that gets close to him will probably be brought down too. While I have seen the previous two versions before this one, it made me interested to see how they would tackle his struggles.
Characters: 8
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
For what it’s worth, I did like what director Frank R. Pierson did in showing Esther’s life at home versus what the glamorous life looked like. Before she makes it big, and even in some of the quieter moments, there is peace, shots of calm and quiet. The road life is an entirely different animal, however, as heaps of fans cheer her on at every turn and you can feel just how overwhelming it is. I appreciated that stark contrast.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 7
Throughout its 141-minute duration, A Star is Born definitely has its shining spots. Who doesn’t love a good rags to riches story? In a twist you can see coming for some time, this is a rags to riches to mortal endings story. I enjoyed watching her rise to stardom although some parts were truly unbearable with John’s character being such a total anus. It was over-the-top at times and took some of the enjoyment away.
Memorability: 2
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Resolution: 4
Overall: 72
Of the four versions, this is hands-down the weakest A Star is Born. It’s not a horrible movie and I definitely wouldn’t steer someone away from checking it out at least once. For me, it just doesn’t stand the test of time.
GT Racing 2: The Real Car Experience
Games and Entertainment
App
GT Racing 2: The Real Car Experience is a true-to-life automotive journey featuring the most...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 8 in TV
Aug 7, 2019
And now our watch has ended
Contains spoilers, click to show
From the moment Game of Thrones first graced our screens, whenever it was going to come to and end, the last season was going to have to be special to land properly.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
10-Day Detox - Healthy 10lbs weight loss in 10 days and complete cleansing and recovery of your body!
Health & Fitness and Food & Drink
App
*** SALE! - 50%! *** *** The 10-Day Detox is oriented on much more deeper body cleansing of...
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Patch Of Fog (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Patch of Fog starts as we meet successful author and television presenter Sandy Duffy (Hill) that would like to return to the quiet life only to find himself caught shoplifting by security guard Robert (Graham). In an attempt to keep the story out of the papers tries to bribe Robert, who turns the tables on Sandy by blackmailing him into being his friend.
As Sandy tries to get himself out of the blackmail, he learns that Robert has a much darker side which puts his and his girlfriend, presenter Lucy (Pulver) lives at risk.
Thoughts on A Patch of Fog
Characters – Robert is mild mannered security guard in a general store, he is a lonely figure that takes advantage of the situation of power once he catches acclaimed author stealing in his store. He blackmails Sandy into being his friend and tries to stay one step ahead of him as he tries his best to escape from position. Sandy is the acclaimed author that has become a celebrity on television, though he wants to take a step away from the spotlight and the endless conversations about his book, A Patch of Fog. He tries his best to outsmart Robert though he can only get so far before learning Robert has everything planned out. Lucy is the television presenter just starting a relationship with Sandy, she has been trying to get the interview together for long time now.
Performances – Stephen Graham in the leading role as the slightly unhinged loner works very well, he shows that given the chance the moments of darkness can shine through. Conleth Hill is great in his role as the author that wants out of the limelight. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without being overly involved in the main story.
Story – The story follows an author and celebrity being blackmailed by a security guard that catches him stealing. The story does come down to a cat-n-mouse style thriller where each character tries to stay ahead of the other, which brings twists along the way. This is a style of story telling we have seen before and it is one that is always interesting to watch unfold, by having both sides having secrets this does make it feel like one of the better ones too.
Thriller – This is a film that does keep you on the edge of your seat throughout as we wait to see just where things will go next.
Settings – The film does show the different lives both Robert and Sandy live, one with success, one with loneliness, though most of the scenes try to take place in everyday locations.
Scene of the Movie – The truth about A Patch of Fog.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not truly knowing is Robert has done this before or whether something made him snap.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books blackmailing movie, it does keep you guessing throughout the film and with the two leads shining we did just want to see more.
Overall: By the book stalker thriller.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/05/a-patch-of-fog-2015/
As Sandy tries to get himself out of the blackmail, he learns that Robert has a much darker side which puts his and his girlfriend, presenter Lucy (Pulver) lives at risk.
Thoughts on A Patch of Fog
Characters – Robert is mild mannered security guard in a general store, he is a lonely figure that takes advantage of the situation of power once he catches acclaimed author stealing in his store. He blackmails Sandy into being his friend and tries to stay one step ahead of him as he tries his best to escape from position. Sandy is the acclaimed author that has become a celebrity on television, though he wants to take a step away from the spotlight and the endless conversations about his book, A Patch of Fog. He tries his best to outsmart Robert though he can only get so far before learning Robert has everything planned out. Lucy is the television presenter just starting a relationship with Sandy, she has been trying to get the interview together for long time now.
Performances – Stephen Graham in the leading role as the slightly unhinged loner works very well, he shows that given the chance the moments of darkness can shine through. Conleth Hill is great in his role as the author that wants out of the limelight. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without being overly involved in the main story.
Story – The story follows an author and celebrity being blackmailed by a security guard that catches him stealing. The story does come down to a cat-n-mouse style thriller where each character tries to stay ahead of the other, which brings twists along the way. This is a style of story telling we have seen before and it is one that is always interesting to watch unfold, by having both sides having secrets this does make it feel like one of the better ones too.
Thriller – This is a film that does keep you on the edge of your seat throughout as we wait to see just where things will go next.
Settings – The film does show the different lives both Robert and Sandy live, one with success, one with loneliness, though most of the scenes try to take place in everyday locations.
Scene of the Movie – The truth about A Patch of Fog.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not truly knowing is Robert has done this before or whether something made him snap.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books blackmailing movie, it does keep you guessing throughout the film and with the two leads shining we did just want to see more.
Overall: By the book stalker thriller.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/05/a-patch-of-fog-2015/
365Flicks (235 KP) rated The Mason Brothers (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
It has been some time since I sat down to watch a good heist movie, so when I received The Mason Brothers and read things like ‘Inspired by films like The Untouchables and Reservoir Dogs’ well call me an old romantic for those films in particular but I will give this one a shot for sure.
I’m going to put something right on front street when it comes to this movie. When it says inspired by Reservoir Dogs it means inspired by… However as my esteemed podcast co-host said “there are worse movies to be inspired by”.
The Mason Brothers is the story of a group of Bank Robbers who as you may imagine are also brothers. We join the crew right after a heist has just gone really wrong and we witness the aftermath where one of the brothers dies. We then spend the night with the other 3 as they hide out waiting for an associate to track down the members of the other crew who screwed them over. The story is given to us in present time and flashbacks, so as the night unfolds and we start to find out who exactly set the guys up, caused there brother to die and wants the cash for themselves. Meanwhile via flashbacks we find out how they planned the job, who they cut into the deal and motivations for why and who did this to the brothers. That about covers it…. Obviously there are twisty turn-y things but hey No Spoilers here.
Keith Sutliff in his Directorial debut has hit upon something great here. He has assembled a good cast with some great chemistry and like most first time directors even throws himself into the mix on acting duties. Sutliff has a real flair for dialogue and it flows throughout. Sometimes screaming ‘you do love a Tarantino flick, dont you!!’ but at the same time freshening up a genre that often feels stale. I was real impressed with this as a Debut movie because it looks great has some real interesting choices with the editing and camera work but everything fits and the movie never loses sight of itself.
Quick word on the cast. As stated Sutliff plays brother Ren Mason, the planner, the mastermind and the strong silent type. Brandon Sean Pearson plays Jesse Mason the full blooded aggravated hot head of the crew. Personally I thought Pearson was the shining light of this Flick. Matthew Webb is Gage, a member of the group but not actually a Mason, I thought right the way through Gage was a wild card and I like to think that was a conscious decision. Rounding off the team is Micheal Ryan Whelan as Orion Mason who we only really see during the flashbacks but has some great little monologue-y scenes. Other supporters include Julien Cesario (Sons of Anarchy), Tim Park (Matador, Sons of Anarchy) and Nazo Bravo (Vigilante Diaries).
Yeah I would say this is a recommend from us here, The script is nice and wordy (something I love) the core cast all deliver in a pretty well paced heist movie gone wrong.
I’m going to put something right on front street when it comes to this movie. When it says inspired by Reservoir Dogs it means inspired by… However as my esteemed podcast co-host said “there are worse movies to be inspired by”.
The Mason Brothers is the story of a group of Bank Robbers who as you may imagine are also brothers. We join the crew right after a heist has just gone really wrong and we witness the aftermath where one of the brothers dies. We then spend the night with the other 3 as they hide out waiting for an associate to track down the members of the other crew who screwed them over. The story is given to us in present time and flashbacks, so as the night unfolds and we start to find out who exactly set the guys up, caused there brother to die and wants the cash for themselves. Meanwhile via flashbacks we find out how they planned the job, who they cut into the deal and motivations for why and who did this to the brothers. That about covers it…. Obviously there are twisty turn-y things but hey No Spoilers here.
Keith Sutliff in his Directorial debut has hit upon something great here. He has assembled a good cast with some great chemistry and like most first time directors even throws himself into the mix on acting duties. Sutliff has a real flair for dialogue and it flows throughout. Sometimes screaming ‘you do love a Tarantino flick, dont you!!’ but at the same time freshening up a genre that often feels stale. I was real impressed with this as a Debut movie because it looks great has some real interesting choices with the editing and camera work but everything fits and the movie never loses sight of itself.
Quick word on the cast. As stated Sutliff plays brother Ren Mason, the planner, the mastermind and the strong silent type. Brandon Sean Pearson plays Jesse Mason the full blooded aggravated hot head of the crew. Personally I thought Pearson was the shining light of this Flick. Matthew Webb is Gage, a member of the group but not actually a Mason, I thought right the way through Gage was a wild card and I like to think that was a conscious decision. Rounding off the team is Micheal Ryan Whelan as Orion Mason who we only really see during the flashbacks but has some great little monologue-y scenes. Other supporters include Julien Cesario (Sons of Anarchy), Tim Park (Matador, Sons of Anarchy) and Nazo Bravo (Vigilante Diaries).
Yeah I would say this is a recommend from us here, The script is nice and wordy (something I love) the core cast all deliver in a pretty well paced heist movie gone wrong.