Search
Search results
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).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A man called otto (2022) in Movies
Apr 8, 2023
Has Over-Sized Heart
They sure don’t make films like this anymore. A character study/drama featuring an “A-List” Star about a curmudgeon who finds that there is more to life than to hide from it. It’s the type of subject matter that has been seen over and over again, but this one hits differently.
It has an over-sized heart.
Based on the Swedish novel (and film) A MAN CALLED OVE…OTTO (played by Tom Hanks) is a recent Widower, who is forcibly retired and has given up on life. The question of the film is whether Otto can find a reason to keep on living.
These types of films can be over-melodramatic and saccharine, but in the capable hands of veteran Director Marc Forster (FINDING NEVERLAND) and the performance of Hanks (who shows that he still has his fastball) this film will touch your heart…if you open your heart up enough to receive it.
Foster has created a world where Otto has sealed himself off from the world by keeping a sharp eye on the perimeters of his row-housing. With an Engineering background, and a keen eye for detail, Otto keeps his world neat and orderly. However, it becomes clear that what Otto is really doing is retreating into this world - and further into himself - until a new neighbor (and a stray cat) starts pulling Otto out his cocoon.
Hanks, as mentioned above, is wonderful as the curmudgeonly Otto. It helps that Hanks’ inherit charm shines through during the early, grumpy, despondant portions of Otto’s existence. Despite what one is seeing on the surface, the audience instantly starts to root for Otto, more than likely due to the audience goodwill that Hanks has built up over his long and lusterous career.
Newcomer (at least to the BankofMarquis) Mariana Trevino is just as strong and caring as the new neighbor that starts breaking through the exterior of Otto. It is important for a film of this sort to have someone just as strong (but not overpowering) as the lead performer to serve as a balance. This Trevino (and the rest of the supporting cast) do very, very well.
Credit for this has to go to Director Forster who surehandedly steers the course of this film, threading the needle effectively on the edge of emotional heft and heart without falling into caricature and melodrama.
It is a charming, effective, quiet film that surprised the BankofMarquis with the amount of earnest heart imbedded within. If you are looking for a film that will charm you and warm your insides, look no further than A MAN CALLED OTTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has an over-sized heart.
Based on the Swedish novel (and film) A MAN CALLED OVE…OTTO (played by Tom Hanks) is a recent Widower, who is forcibly retired and has given up on life. The question of the film is whether Otto can find a reason to keep on living.
These types of films can be over-melodramatic and saccharine, but in the capable hands of veteran Director Marc Forster (FINDING NEVERLAND) and the performance of Hanks (who shows that he still has his fastball) this film will touch your heart…if you open your heart up enough to receive it.
Foster has created a world where Otto has sealed himself off from the world by keeping a sharp eye on the perimeters of his row-housing. With an Engineering background, and a keen eye for detail, Otto keeps his world neat and orderly. However, it becomes clear that what Otto is really doing is retreating into this world - and further into himself - until a new neighbor (and a stray cat) starts pulling Otto out his cocoon.
Hanks, as mentioned above, is wonderful as the curmudgeonly Otto. It helps that Hanks’ inherit charm shines through during the early, grumpy, despondant portions of Otto’s existence. Despite what one is seeing on the surface, the audience instantly starts to root for Otto, more than likely due to the audience goodwill that Hanks has built up over his long and lusterous career.
Newcomer (at least to the BankofMarquis) Mariana Trevino is just as strong and caring as the new neighbor that starts breaking through the exterior of Otto. It is important for a film of this sort to have someone just as strong (but not overpowering) as the lead performer to serve as a balance. This Trevino (and the rest of the supporting cast) do very, very well.
Credit for this has to go to Director Forster who surehandedly steers the course of this film, threading the needle effectively on the edge of emotional heft and heart without falling into caricature and melodrama.
It is a charming, effective, quiet film that surprised the BankofMarquis with the amount of earnest heart imbedded within. If you are looking for a film that will charm you and warm your insides, look no further than A MAN CALLED OTTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Neeson's best film in years
Yes, we all know the jokes. Liam Neeson’s spiral into revenge thriller territory is one of the most meme-worthy things in film, except maybe John Travolta and Battlefield Earth. Starting with Taken and its, let’s be honest, dreadful sequels, the Irish actor has made a name for himself as the go-to guy to rough someone up after a spate of bad-luck.
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Few Good Men (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Plot: At Guantanamo Marine Base, a private is attacked by 2 other marines and dies as a result. An investigation is conducted by Lt. Commander Jo Galloway and reveals to her superiors that she believes that the private was attacked by because he was going over the head of Colonel Jessup, the base commander and was threatening to reveal something unless he gets a transfer, so Jessup ordered a “code red” which is basically a type hazing done which is not legal. Galloway wants to be assigned to defend the 2 marines but her superior prefers that the whole go away quietly so he denies her request and has the case assigned to Lt. Dan Kaffee, a Naval lawyer who hasn’t tried a case in court and prefers to plea his cases out. But Galloway warns him that if he pleads the case out, Jessup will get away with murder. Kaffee decides not to plead the case out and tries to defend them but there’s no proof that Jessup actually gave the order.
Verdict: Courtroom Masterpiece
Story: Who doesn’t like a good investigation story? Well this gives us a look at how a team of lawyers need to uncover the truth about a marine’s death. We know who is meant to have committed the crime but we need to see who gave the final order. The team of lawyers are all very different and clash over every decision. They must put the differences behind them to work together to gain the evidence to prove the truth and it all comes to a clash in the courtroom creating one of the most iconic scenes in film history. It seems like quite a boring subject but put together it is one of the most engrossing stories in film. (9/10)
Actor Review
Tom Cruise: Lt. Daniel Kaffee top lawyer who comes off as a slacker, he has never lost a case but he now has to take one of the biggest of his career. Cruise nails this using his charm to get over how easy it all seems but also shows he can go toe to toe with the best in the business with the courtroom scene with Jack. (9/10)
cruise
Jack Nicholson: Col. Nathan R. Jessup believes he is top of any chain, he gives out orders to anyone and his old fashion techniques will be his downfall. Great performance from Jack showing what one man with all the power can do. (9/10)
jack
Demi Moore: Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway officer who wants to take the case and wants to make it her own but if forced to work with Kaffee very much against her will. Good performance but sometime gets out shown by Cruise. (7/10)
demi
Kevin Bacon: Capt. Jack Ross an old friend of Kaffee who is going up against him in court, he will do what is right in his role but he won’t go over any laws to make sure he wins. Good supporting performance. (7/10)
Director Review: Rob Reiner – Great directing throughout to create one of the most interesting films of all time. (9/10)
Crime: Searching for the truth has never been so interesting. (10/10)
Drama: Top drama showing how each line is leading to something much bigger. (10/10)
Mystery: We have to watch as the lawyers uncover the truth. (9/10)
Thriller: Brings you to the edge of your seat from start to finish. (10/10)
Settings: Most of the settings work well, but the courtroom is the highlight arena of choice. (6/10)
Suggestion: This is a must watch for all, it is a classic that has one of the most iconic film scenes of all time. (Watch)
Best Part: Tom v Jack in courtroom.
Worst Part: Not one
Favourite Quote: See Video
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for four Oscars including ‘Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Sound, Best Film Editing.
Box Office: $243 Million
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: In the heart of the nation’s capital, in a courthouse of the U.S. government, one man will stop at nothing to keep his honor, and one will stop at nothing to find the truth.
Overall: Brilliant Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/17/a-few-good-men-1992/
Verdict: Courtroom Masterpiece
Story: Who doesn’t like a good investigation story? Well this gives us a look at how a team of lawyers need to uncover the truth about a marine’s death. We know who is meant to have committed the crime but we need to see who gave the final order. The team of lawyers are all very different and clash over every decision. They must put the differences behind them to work together to gain the evidence to prove the truth and it all comes to a clash in the courtroom creating one of the most iconic scenes in film history. It seems like quite a boring subject but put together it is one of the most engrossing stories in film. (9/10)
Actor Review
Tom Cruise: Lt. Daniel Kaffee top lawyer who comes off as a slacker, he has never lost a case but he now has to take one of the biggest of his career. Cruise nails this using his charm to get over how easy it all seems but also shows he can go toe to toe with the best in the business with the courtroom scene with Jack. (9/10)
cruise
Jack Nicholson: Col. Nathan R. Jessup believes he is top of any chain, he gives out orders to anyone and his old fashion techniques will be his downfall. Great performance from Jack showing what one man with all the power can do. (9/10)
jack
Demi Moore: Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway officer who wants to take the case and wants to make it her own but if forced to work with Kaffee very much against her will. Good performance but sometime gets out shown by Cruise. (7/10)
demi
Kevin Bacon: Capt. Jack Ross an old friend of Kaffee who is going up against him in court, he will do what is right in his role but he won’t go over any laws to make sure he wins. Good supporting performance. (7/10)
Director Review: Rob Reiner – Great directing throughout to create one of the most interesting films of all time. (9/10)
Crime: Searching for the truth has never been so interesting. (10/10)
Drama: Top drama showing how each line is leading to something much bigger. (10/10)
Mystery: We have to watch as the lawyers uncover the truth. (9/10)
Thriller: Brings you to the edge of your seat from start to finish. (10/10)
Settings: Most of the settings work well, but the courtroom is the highlight arena of choice. (6/10)
Suggestion: This is a must watch for all, it is a classic that has one of the most iconic film scenes of all time. (Watch)
Best Part: Tom v Jack in courtroom.
Worst Part: Not one
Favourite Quote: See Video
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for four Oscars including ‘Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Sound, Best Film Editing.
Box Office: $243 Million
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: In the heart of the nation’s capital, in a courthouse of the U.S. government, one man will stop at nothing to keep his honor, and one will stop at nothing to find the truth.
Overall: Brilliant Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/17/a-few-good-men-1992/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Amadeus (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Amadeus starts as an elderly Antonio Salieri (Abraham) admitting that he killed Mozart, leading to him getting taken to the insane asylum. Salieri recounts his story of his small town beginnings dreaming of being a composer and after a moment of fate he ends up in a position where he can learn music leading to him job as head conductor to the king of Austria. Mozart (Hulce) is the world renowned composer that has taken the notice of all around him with Salieri dreaming of one day being as good as Mozart.
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Gentle, slow-paced and full of HEART
The new "Mr. Rogers" movie, A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is gentle, warm, slow, kind and heartfelt - just the type of film that is antithetical to how life is bounding past all of us on a daily basis. It would be well worth your time to slow down, turn off the electronics, and take in this wonderfully loving film.
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Breathtaking and Intense
It's 1940 and the Nazis are overpowering the British army, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk in an effort to return home to England. The English channel is all that stands in the way of the 400,000 soldiers that are stranded on the beach. The story begins with Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), making his way through the town as propaganda is being dropped from the sky, informing them that the enemy are closing in. After a brief dash to avoid the bullets that begin raining down on him and some fellow soldiers, he barely manages to make it to the beach where the immense desperation of the situation becomes apparent. Thousands of men lined up, waiting for something to free them while bodies wash up on the beach. The cinematic scale is, as you'd expect from Christopher Nolan, impressive. And it doesn't let up from then on.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Made starts as Barry Seal (Cruise) a pilot gets offered a job by the CIA agent Monty Schafer (Gleeson) to fly over different parts of Northern and Southern America to take photos for the CIA, the job is exclusive but as his family grows with Lucy (Wright) having children, he needs more money.
When one if his flights takes him to South America he meets businessman Pablo Escobar (Mejia) and his partners who recruit him to smuggle drug into America. Before long Barry is getting pushed into other forms of smuggling both to and from America.
Thoughts on American Made
Characters – Barry Seal was a small-time cigar smuggling pilot before he gets recruited by the CIA to fly over other parts of the Americas to spy, soon he becomes involved in large scale smuggling across America both in and out, he believes he is working in the CIA but always seemed to be getting slightly in deeper than first thought. He struggles to keep his personal life together with his wife and children suffering his sudden changes in location. Monty is the CIA agent that recruits Barry to smuggle, he believes he is in control of the whole situation as he bails Barry out of trouble and gives him the instructions from the American side of the events. Lucy is the wife of Barry that must deal with his lifestyle but once there is a large amount of money involved she embraces the life of luxury for her family. We do have the drug dealing side of the characters that Barry deals with but we only see them in the dealing side of the story.
Performances – This is another Tom Cruise vehicle where he shows just how talent he is, this helps his credibility after the disaster which was The Mummy, this could be his best full ranged acting performance in years. Domhnall is great in his supporting role showing he can work in nearly any genre right now. Sarah Wright is good but we don’t get to see enough of her characters struggle or enjoyment of the money.
Story – The story follows Barry Seal and how he went from small-time cigar smuggler into one of the most infamous drug and gun smugglers in modern American history. We follow the events from how he remembers them explaining how he just didn’t seem to know how things just kept falling his way but he went with the flow and how the government helped support the international gun trade. This was a lot more interesting that I could imagine showing us just how corrupt the government could be when it needed to be.
Action/Biopic/Comedy – The action comes from how Barry would get the job done, he has edge of the seat moments of when it comes to the flight sequences, the comedy is lightly toned into the story which sounds like a comedy over a real story but seeing the story of Barry Seal and his smuggling makes for an interesting biopic.
Settings – The film does take us across difference parts America to show where Barry ends up going to which all look like the time being presented in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Emergency Landing
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does make the idea seem like a good thing rather than a criminal in action.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining biopic that shows how a smuggler ran a multi-million-dollar organisation that even the government supported.
Overall: Enjoyable movie all around.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/11/01/american-made-2017/
When one if his flights takes him to South America he meets businessman Pablo Escobar (Mejia) and his partners who recruit him to smuggle drug into America. Before long Barry is getting pushed into other forms of smuggling both to and from America.
Thoughts on American Made
Characters – Barry Seal was a small-time cigar smuggling pilot before he gets recruited by the CIA to fly over other parts of the Americas to spy, soon he becomes involved in large scale smuggling across America both in and out, he believes he is working in the CIA but always seemed to be getting slightly in deeper than first thought. He struggles to keep his personal life together with his wife and children suffering his sudden changes in location. Monty is the CIA agent that recruits Barry to smuggle, he believes he is in control of the whole situation as he bails Barry out of trouble and gives him the instructions from the American side of the events. Lucy is the wife of Barry that must deal with his lifestyle but once there is a large amount of money involved she embraces the life of luxury for her family. We do have the drug dealing side of the characters that Barry deals with but we only see them in the dealing side of the story.
Performances – This is another Tom Cruise vehicle where he shows just how talent he is, this helps his credibility after the disaster which was The Mummy, this could be his best full ranged acting performance in years. Domhnall is great in his supporting role showing he can work in nearly any genre right now. Sarah Wright is good but we don’t get to see enough of her characters struggle or enjoyment of the money.
Story – The story follows Barry Seal and how he went from small-time cigar smuggler into one of the most infamous drug and gun smugglers in modern American history. We follow the events from how he remembers them explaining how he just didn’t seem to know how things just kept falling his way but he went with the flow and how the government helped support the international gun trade. This was a lot more interesting that I could imagine showing us just how corrupt the government could be when it needed to be.
Action/Biopic/Comedy – The action comes from how Barry would get the job done, he has edge of the seat moments of when it comes to the flight sequences, the comedy is lightly toned into the story which sounds like a comedy over a real story but seeing the story of Barry Seal and his smuggling makes for an interesting biopic.
Settings – The film does take us across difference parts America to show where Barry ends up going to which all look like the time being presented in the film.
Scene of the Movie – Emergency Landing
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does make the idea seem like a good thing rather than a criminal in action.
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining biopic that shows how a smuggler ran a multi-million-dollar organisation that even the government supported.
Overall: Enjoyable movie all around.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/11/01/american-made-2017/