Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Lawless (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Prohibition means profit to the bootlegging Bondurant brothers, until a new deputy appears wanting a cut of the action. When the family, led by oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy), refuses, it ignites a pattern of violent lawless retribution between the corrupt local authorities and the moonshine-selling brothers.
While adapted from the pages of a successful book, the plot of “Lawless” portrays a familiar story. A young romance slated against the challenges of a family who is literally and metaphorically, sticking to their guns. The brilliance of the film exists in the vivid set work, understated characterization, and graphic portrayals of unbridled yet historically accurate punishments.
There are bullet holes everywhere in this wild land of violence. The depictions of torture, while not the most graphically intensive in cinema, are characterized by psychological malice. The result is a film that manages to entirely pull the viewer into a different, much less civilized, time.
Led and narrated by seasoned actor, Shia LaBeouf, as the youngest brother, Jack Bondurant, the role is hardly a challenge. Yet his performances only stands out when supported by other cast members, such as the gangster Floyd Banner, played by Gary Oldman. And while LaBeouf’s performance is not a great as it could be, it shines next to his lackluster costar, Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix the forbidden preacher’s daughter and object of young Jack’s eye.
The best performance in the film is not the lead, but that of his brother Forrest who dispenses well-timed wisdom or humor even in direst situations. Further helping in the films success are the supporting characters; the third Bondurant brother, Howard (Jason Clarke), mechanically gifted family friend, Cricket Pate (Dane DeHaan), and city wise beauty Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain).
While not as impressive as expected, the slow but steady story and complex visceral nature of “Lawless”, make it a film that is worth the price of a ticket, for anyone who can make it through the squeamish bits.
While adapted from the pages of a successful book, the plot of “Lawless” portrays a familiar story. A young romance slated against the challenges of a family who is literally and metaphorically, sticking to their guns. The brilliance of the film exists in the vivid set work, understated characterization, and graphic portrayals of unbridled yet historically accurate punishments.
There are bullet holes everywhere in this wild land of violence. The depictions of torture, while not the most graphically intensive in cinema, are characterized by psychological malice. The result is a film that manages to entirely pull the viewer into a different, much less civilized, time.
Led and narrated by seasoned actor, Shia LaBeouf, as the youngest brother, Jack Bondurant, the role is hardly a challenge. Yet his performances only stands out when supported by other cast members, such as the gangster Floyd Banner, played by Gary Oldman. And while LaBeouf’s performance is not a great as it could be, it shines next to his lackluster costar, Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix the forbidden preacher’s daughter and object of young Jack’s eye.
The best performance in the film is not the lead, but that of his brother Forrest who dispenses well-timed wisdom or humor even in direst situations. Further helping in the films success are the supporting characters; the third Bondurant brother, Howard (Jason Clarke), mechanically gifted family friend, Cricket Pate (Dane DeHaan), and city wise beauty Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain).
While not as impressive as expected, the slow but steady story and complex visceral nature of “Lawless”, make it a film that is worth the price of a ticket, for anyone who can make it through the squeamish bits.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated This Means War (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It’s been said that all’s fair in love and war and never was the case more evident than in the tale of FDR and Tuck, two best friends who also happen to be partners and top agents at the CIA. After a covert operation doesn’t go as planned the duo find themselves riding their desks in the Los Angeles agency office much to their chagrin.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Rat (1 KP) rated Peaky Blinders - Season 1 in TV
Mar 28, 2018
Forget everything you think you know about period drama
It would be easy to dismiss Peaky Blinders as just a British drama. It would be easy to dismiss it as just a period piece. It would be easy to claim that it was just a British Boardwalk Empire. You'd be so wrong to do so.
Every part of Peaky Blinders is perfection. From the superb acting of its regular cast (Cillian Murphy on a tv show? Sign me up!) to a roster of featured guests (Sam Neill? Tom Hardy? Adrien Brody? Who did the casting director sell their soul to, anyway?) to the use of colour and an outlaw music soundtrack that shouldn't work, but does (Nick Cave? PJ Harvey? Tom Waits? David Bowie? On a period drama? What is this? Freaking genius, that's what.)
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a family of Irish gypsy (their word, not mine) - blooded Birmingham bookmakers tries to recover from the horrors of that war and build up their business. Second oldest, Tommy Shelby (played expertly by Cillian Murphy who manages to play a gangster who is both ruthless and fragile with the ability to break your heart with a single look), came back from the war broken by his experiences, but determined to rise far beyond the limitations of his Small Heath upbringing. Not only does he have the expected clashes with those who want to keep him from growing his business (both criminal rivals and the police) but he has a family to run (with all the interpersonal conflicts that entails). All of this is set against a backdrop of political turmoil from the IRA and the rise of communist sympathy in the UK.
You shouldn't like Tommy Shelby, but he is written and acted so well that you won't be able to not like him. The same can be said for older brother, Arthur, younger siblings John, Ada, and Finn. If you don't love Aunt Polly, then you must have a problem with strong female characters.
Steven Knight has taken a world told to him through family legend and turned it into a world that you will be eager to inhabit an hour (or, if you're like everyone I know, a season) at a time. He writes a period drama that doesn't feel dated. The characters and their struggles are as relevant today as they were nearly a hundred years ago.
Take a chance on the show with the weird name and discover why there are very few casual Peaky Blinders fans. There's a reason why the late, great David Bowie was a huge fan and made sure that they would have a song from his last album before he died. There's a reason the show's dated fashion and hairstyles are making a comeback, why Peaky Blinders pubs and pub nights are popping up all over. It's that good. Check it out for yourself.
Every part of Peaky Blinders is perfection. From the superb acting of its regular cast (Cillian Murphy on a tv show? Sign me up!) to a roster of featured guests (Sam Neill? Tom Hardy? Adrien Brody? Who did the casting director sell their soul to, anyway?) to the use of colour and an outlaw music soundtrack that shouldn't work, but does (Nick Cave? PJ Harvey? Tom Waits? David Bowie? On a period drama? What is this? Freaking genius, that's what.)
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a family of Irish gypsy (their word, not mine) - blooded Birmingham bookmakers tries to recover from the horrors of that war and build up their business. Second oldest, Tommy Shelby (played expertly by Cillian Murphy who manages to play a gangster who is both ruthless and fragile with the ability to break your heart with a single look), came back from the war broken by his experiences, but determined to rise far beyond the limitations of his Small Heath upbringing. Not only does he have the expected clashes with those who want to keep him from growing his business (both criminal rivals and the police) but he has a family to run (with all the interpersonal conflicts that entails). All of this is set against a backdrop of political turmoil from the IRA and the rise of communist sympathy in the UK.
You shouldn't like Tommy Shelby, but he is written and acted so well that you won't be able to not like him. The same can be said for older brother, Arthur, younger siblings John, Ada, and Finn. If you don't love Aunt Polly, then you must have a problem with strong female characters.
Steven Knight has taken a world told to him through family legend and turned it into a world that you will be eager to inhabit an hour (or, if you're like everyone I know, a season) at a time. He writes a period drama that doesn't feel dated. The characters and their struggles are as relevant today as they were nearly a hundred years ago.
Take a chance on the show with the weird name and discover why there are very few casual Peaky Blinders fans. There's a reason why the late, great David Bowie was a huge fan and made sure that they would have a song from his last album before he died. There's a reason the show's dated fashion and hairstyles are making a comeback, why Peaky Blinders pubs and pub nights are popping up all over. It's that good. Check it out for yourself.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When we last saw former cop turned wasteland warrior Max, it was nearly 30 years ago. Writer/Director George Miller had envisioned a follow up back in 2000, but various factors delayed the film so much that star Mel Gibson believed he had become too old to play the character which opened the door for Tom Hardy to don the knee brace of the famous character.
In “Fury Road”, fans are given a lavish spectacle that is one non-stop ride of intensity that is as my wife put it, “pushing me so far back into my seat that I am almost in the row behind us”.
When Max is captured by a vicious group lead by Immortal Joe, he stumbles into a true hell on earth as Joe has legions of warriors, most of whom have various health issues, it is assumed from the post nuclear world in which they live. They use captured individuals as blood donors to help make the sick live longer and Joe himself controls a large supply of fresh water as well as oversees what he considers his breeding stock of women.
When Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), goes rogue and abducts Joe’s harem, this begins a breakneck and deadly pursuit across the wastelands where Max finds himself literally chained to the front of a car as a blood bag for the driver.
Amidst the eventually carnage that follows, Max is able to free himself and forges an uneasy alliance with Furiosa as she is attempting to lead the women she has liberated from Joe to safety.
With Joe and his large band of followers hot on their heels, Max must once again face overwhelming odds to save the day.
The film does an amazing job of creating an intense visual spectacle as the car chases and combat take up a good half the film and they are absolutely breathtaking to watch. CGI is kept to a minimum and what you see on the screen is a clash of metal as vehicles flip through the air, crash, and explode in spectacular fashion.
The film though is light on details as much of the story is left for you to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Theron has explained her characters motivations very well in interviews but in the film it is at times murky. The limited dialogue in the film can at times be hard to understand due to accent and a form of “New Speak” but it is Hardy himself who is most interesting. He plays Max as a strong and silent type who is haunted by ghosts of his past, the people he could not save are a constant presence in his life as he sees them in his dreams and when he is awake, this leads to a character who is reduced to little more than pure survival instinct and does not allow for much in the way of character development.
In many ways this is a reintroduction of Max to a new generation so much of the charisma and intensity that was a part of Gibson’s portrayal has been scaled back to a world weary individual who has pretty much given up on finding the better life that he lost many years ago.
Miller has said he has enough material for two more films and if they are in the same league as this one, I would love to see further adventures for Max, let us just hope the wait is not as long next time out.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/14/mad-max-fury-road/
In “Fury Road”, fans are given a lavish spectacle that is one non-stop ride of intensity that is as my wife put it, “pushing me so far back into my seat that I am almost in the row behind us”.
When Max is captured by a vicious group lead by Immortal Joe, he stumbles into a true hell on earth as Joe has legions of warriors, most of whom have various health issues, it is assumed from the post nuclear world in which they live. They use captured individuals as blood donors to help make the sick live longer and Joe himself controls a large supply of fresh water as well as oversees what he considers his breeding stock of women.
When Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), goes rogue and abducts Joe’s harem, this begins a breakneck and deadly pursuit across the wastelands where Max finds himself literally chained to the front of a car as a blood bag for the driver.
Amidst the eventually carnage that follows, Max is able to free himself and forges an uneasy alliance with Furiosa as she is attempting to lead the women she has liberated from Joe to safety.
With Joe and his large band of followers hot on their heels, Max must once again face overwhelming odds to save the day.
The film does an amazing job of creating an intense visual spectacle as the car chases and combat take up a good half the film and they are absolutely breathtaking to watch. CGI is kept to a minimum and what you see on the screen is a clash of metal as vehicles flip through the air, crash, and explode in spectacular fashion.
The film though is light on details as much of the story is left for you to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Theron has explained her characters motivations very well in interviews but in the film it is at times murky. The limited dialogue in the film can at times be hard to understand due to accent and a form of “New Speak” but it is Hardy himself who is most interesting. He plays Max as a strong and silent type who is haunted by ghosts of his past, the people he could not save are a constant presence in his life as he sees them in his dreams and when he is awake, this leads to a character who is reduced to little more than pure survival instinct and does not allow for much in the way of character development.
In many ways this is a reintroduction of Max to a new generation so much of the charisma and intensity that was a part of Gibson’s portrayal has been scaled back to a world weary individual who has pretty much given up on finding the better life that he lost many years ago.
Miller has said he has enough material for two more films and if they are in the same league as this one, I would love to see further adventures for Max, let us just hope the wait is not as long next time out.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/14/mad-max-fury-road/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
If you can manage to throw away what you know about the Marvel Comic book story of Venom, you’ll enjoy this movie immensely. After a successful re-launching of the Spiderman series, it’s no surprise Sony Pictures would capitalize and develop a Venom spin-off.
Venom follows investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy), who’s living life in San Francisco with his fiancé Annie (Michelle Williams) after being blacklisted by all media outlets in New York for his outlandish attempts at digging for the truth to his stories. Eddie, with his inability to follow protocol and keep boundaries, he steals confidential information from his fiancé’s computer, loses the only job willing to hire him, and tries to bring down the
powerful Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), famed bio-tech entrepreneur. Behind the façade of Drake’s disease curing company, Life Foundation, Drake’s major motive is to bond with alien creatures called symbiotes in hopes of recreating the human by providing them with the ability to survive in space. He managed to send a rocket into space and return 4 symbiotes which he tests on human’s killing 2 of the symbiotes and leaving one to escape and the last one to test on himself. Realizing the amount of power he gets from the merging of the two species, Drake decides he wants to head back into space and bring back more symbiotes
With nothing left to lose, Brock breaks into the Life Foundation and ends up becoming infected by one of the last 2 symbiotes which eventually introduces itself to Brock as Venom. With Venom inhabiting Eddie’s body, they become an unlikely human killing machine each trying to keep to their species capabilities. This unusual pairing consists of quick witted banter, with each trying to upstage the other.
As the two begin to spend some quality time “together,” they realize they aren’t much different. They figure out a way to co-exist all for the sake of saving the human race.
A fast-paced superhero movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat, laughing out loud, and completely entertained. The character development is a bit lacking, however the action sequences, and the comradery between our morphed superhero makes up for some of the holes in the story line.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/05/venom/
Venom follows investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy), who’s living life in San Francisco with his fiancé Annie (Michelle Williams) after being blacklisted by all media outlets in New York for his outlandish attempts at digging for the truth to his stories. Eddie, with his inability to follow protocol and keep boundaries, he steals confidential information from his fiancé’s computer, loses the only job willing to hire him, and tries to bring down the
powerful Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), famed bio-tech entrepreneur. Behind the façade of Drake’s disease curing company, Life Foundation, Drake’s major motive is to bond with alien creatures called symbiotes in hopes of recreating the human by providing them with the ability to survive in space. He managed to send a rocket into space and return 4 symbiotes which he tests on human’s killing 2 of the symbiotes and leaving one to escape and the last one to test on himself. Realizing the amount of power he gets from the merging of the two species, Drake decides he wants to head back into space and bring back more symbiotes
With nothing left to lose, Brock breaks into the Life Foundation and ends up becoming infected by one of the last 2 symbiotes which eventually introduces itself to Brock as Venom. With Venom inhabiting Eddie’s body, they become an unlikely human killing machine each trying to keep to their species capabilities. This unusual pairing consists of quick witted banter, with each trying to upstage the other.
As the two begin to spend some quality time “together,” they realize they aren’t much different. They figure out a way to co-exist all for the sake of saving the human race.
A fast-paced superhero movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat, laughing out loud, and completely entertained. The character development is a bit lacking, however the action sequences, and the comradery between our morphed superhero makes up for some of the holes in the story line.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/05/venom/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Black Hawk Down (2001) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Modern Warfare like we had never seen it before...
Black Hawk Down is to me, the best war film that I have ever seen. Intense and relentless, it conveys the horror and tactics of modern warfare and more to point, like all great and classic war movies, demonstrates the dedication, skill and spirit that warfare can manifest when all hell breaks loose, or the proverbial hits the fan!
As a launch pad for some many careers in the naughties and beyond, including Tom Hardy, this is well cast, directed, edited, with an effective Hans Zimmer score and some of the best sound design I have ever heard, the engrossing horror of the situation was conveyed brilliantly. But there is something that I find somewhat disturbing about this film and it may well be a failure but it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the medium;
The Somalians or the “Indigenous Personal” as they were so aptly referred to in the film, came across as heartless, rage filled amoral murderers and while in many respects in respects to those portrayed in the film, it may well be true, I found myself and I doubt that I was alone, being filled with sense of glee every time one of these bastards was blown to pieces or filled with a hail of Uncle Sam’s bullets!
Also the scene where a child accidentally guns down his own father after a U.S. troop slips, is so very telling of the militia culture in that country at that time. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the Man? The Child? Or see it a poetic justice? Or just be relieved that our “Peace Keeping” U.S. soldier got away with his life? In many ways, I think that the ambivalence if that scene, sums up what was so brilliant as well as frightening about this film.
Whilst on one hand, it is hard to deny that we are supposed to feel for, respect and support our American heroes who will go to extreme lengths to “Leave No Man Behind”, we are asked to look at why the Somalians have taken up arms? But in the end it is a huge sociological issue and this film does not dwell too much on that. It touches on the fact that there are always two sides to any conflict, but like Zulu (1960) forty years before it, it chose its side and that was the normally powerful under dog and we saw them survive what many of us would have struggled to do.
This is truly a war film for war film fans and a MUST SEE for everyone.
As a launch pad for some many careers in the naughties and beyond, including Tom Hardy, this is well cast, directed, edited, with an effective Hans Zimmer score and some of the best sound design I have ever heard, the engrossing horror of the situation was conveyed brilliantly. But there is something that I find somewhat disturbing about this film and it may well be a failure but it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the medium;
The Somalians or the “Indigenous Personal” as they were so aptly referred to in the film, came across as heartless, rage filled amoral murderers and while in many respects in respects to those portrayed in the film, it may well be true, I found myself and I doubt that I was alone, being filled with sense of glee every time one of these bastards was blown to pieces or filled with a hail of Uncle Sam’s bullets!
Also the scene where a child accidentally guns down his own father after a U.S. troop slips, is so very telling of the militia culture in that country at that time. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the Man? The Child? Or see it a poetic justice? Or just be relieved that our “Peace Keeping” U.S. soldier got away with his life? In many ways, I think that the ambivalence if that scene, sums up what was so brilliant as well as frightening about this film.
Whilst on one hand, it is hard to deny that we are supposed to feel for, respect and support our American heroes who will go to extreme lengths to “Leave No Man Behind”, we are asked to look at why the Somalians have taken up arms? But in the end it is a huge sociological issue and this film does not dwell too much on that. It touches on the fact that there are always two sides to any conflict, but like Zulu (1960) forty years before it, it chose its side and that was the normally powerful under dog and we saw them survive what many of us would have struggled to do.
This is truly a war film for war film fans and a MUST SEE for everyone.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Wheelman (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Grillo is great (1 more)
Decent script
One Hell Of A Night
Wheelman is a Netflix movie that unfortunately debuted on the same date as the hotly anticipated Stephen King adaption, 1922. Though Wheelman deserves more than to be overlooked and although I didn't expect much going into it, I came away afterwards pleasantly surprised.
This movie reminds me of a bunch of others. There is some aspects of Phonebooth used here, it was also reminiscent of a Tom Hardy film called Locke that came out a couple of years ago. It is also similar to what Drive was marketed as in the trailers before it's release, (even though Drive ended up being a psychological nior drama.) The movie took a while to convince me; for the first 15 minutes nothing happened that really excited me, but once I got a bit deeper into and more invested in the story that was unfolding, I ended up being sucked into the wild ride that the protagonist was going through. I think that the film's success on that front, relies a great deal on the performance of Frank Grillo, so it's just as well he brought his A-game here. For 99% of the movie, Grillo is onscreen, so there is no hiding from the camera in terms of his performance and he nails every second of it. He really manages to make an insanely dangerous situation feel grounded and relatable. The other actors are mostly featured via their voices on the phone, which again makes their performances difficult to deliver, but they all manage it convincingly. I always knew who each person was in relation to each other and what each character's motives were, which isn't always clear in a movie where most characters are only heard on the phone.
The script is decent, but I feel that a lot of the dialogue was ad-libbed, which again adds a natural, more realistic feel to the events that are unfolding. This was a good move by the director and the direction overall is great. There are some fairly odd creative choices made, but all of them are effective and feel worthwhile. The cinematography and sound mixing are implemented effectively and add to the overall urgent tone that the movie is pursuing.
Overall, this is definitely worth a watch. To me, it is like a callback to a 70's action chase thriller, with a modern twist. There is also an element of film noir present and the intense tone will keep you engaged until the end credits. You do need to stick with the film past the fifteen minute mark though. Although the whole thing is only 82 minutes long in it's entirety, it takes while to really suck you in, but once it does, it is a really fun ride worth taking.
This movie reminds me of a bunch of others. There is some aspects of Phonebooth used here, it was also reminiscent of a Tom Hardy film called Locke that came out a couple of years ago. It is also similar to what Drive was marketed as in the trailers before it's release, (even though Drive ended up being a psychological nior drama.) The movie took a while to convince me; for the first 15 minutes nothing happened that really excited me, but once I got a bit deeper into and more invested in the story that was unfolding, I ended up being sucked into the wild ride that the protagonist was going through. I think that the film's success on that front, relies a great deal on the performance of Frank Grillo, so it's just as well he brought his A-game here. For 99% of the movie, Grillo is onscreen, so there is no hiding from the camera in terms of his performance and he nails every second of it. He really manages to make an insanely dangerous situation feel grounded and relatable. The other actors are mostly featured via their voices on the phone, which again makes their performances difficult to deliver, but they all manage it convincingly. I always knew who each person was in relation to each other and what each character's motives were, which isn't always clear in a movie where most characters are only heard on the phone.
The script is decent, but I feel that a lot of the dialogue was ad-libbed, which again adds a natural, more realistic feel to the events that are unfolding. This was a good move by the director and the direction overall is great. There are some fairly odd creative choices made, but all of them are effective and feel worthwhile. The cinematography and sound mixing are implemented effectively and add to the overall urgent tone that the movie is pursuing.
Overall, this is definitely worth a watch. To me, it is like a callback to a 70's action chase thriller, with a modern twist. There is also an element of film noir present and the intense tone will keep you engaged until the end credits. You do need to stick with the film past the fifteen minute mark though. Although the whole thing is only 82 minutes long in it's entirety, it takes while to really suck you in, but once it does, it is a really fun ride worth taking.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/