Search
Search results
Richard Griffiths (27 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Apr 26, 2017
Blazing Minds (89 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2021 (Updated Nov 2, 2021)
The film stars Travis Fimmel (Raised by Wolves), Rachael Taylor (Jessica Jones), William Fichtner (Armageddon) and Academy Award winner, Forest Whitaker (Last King of Scotland) and is directed by Mark Steven Johnson (Daredevil, Ghost Rider).
Based on the true story of the Youngstown mob, President Richard Nixon, the FBI, and the biggest bank heist in US history! In 1972, a gang of like-minded thieves plan a heist to steal $30 million in illegal campaign contributions from the President’s secret fund.
When it comes to a heist movie Finding Steve McQueen is undoubtedly one that is fun to watch, the true comedy element comes from Travis Fimmel’s Harry Barber character who was obsessed with McQueen hence his look and name change, the film takes on the journey of the heist as series of flashbacks as Harry tells Molly (Rachel Taylor) “the truth”, this is how we get introduced to Enzo Rotella (William Fichtner) the boss of the heist, I have to say that when it comes to Fitchner he always pulls off a great performance and he plays the character great as he tries to hold the mismatch of a team together.
Based on the true story of the Youngstown mob, President Richard Nixon, the FBI, and the biggest bank heist in US history! In 1972, a gang of like-minded thieves plan a heist to steal $30 million in illegal campaign contributions from the President’s secret fund.
When it comes to a heist movie Finding Steve McQueen is undoubtedly one that is fun to watch, the true comedy element comes from Travis Fimmel’s Harry Barber character who was obsessed with McQueen hence his look and name change, the film takes on the journey of the heist as series of flashbacks as Harry tells Molly (Rachel Taylor) “the truth”, this is how we get introduced to Enzo Rotella (William Fichtner) the boss of the heist, I have to say that when it comes to Fitchner he always pulls off a great performance and he plays the character great as he tries to hold the mismatch of a team together.
Kaylin (39 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Apr 28, 2017
Awesome story and great writing (2 more)
Excellent use of CG
Travis Fimmel, Dominic Cooper, and Ben Foster excel in their roles
You have to have more than a general knowledge of Warcraft and its history to understand some of what is going on (2 more)
Went on a little bit long
Felt like a few scenes were missing
Welcome to the World (of Warcraft)
I love Warcraft! The video game, I mean, so I was very excited to see this movie and I wasn't disappointed. I felt like I was truly in Azeroth. I felt all that old hate for Gul'dan come back. I had all these awesome feelings! But, as great a time as I had, I realized that if you weren't familiar with the lore of Warcraft, then you were going to be very confused during this movie. While they explained some things, the person who went to the movie with me still had to lean over and ask me why some of the characters were doing what they were doing.
So, it's a pretty good movie, but if you don't know the lore, you're going to be pretty confused.
So, it's a pretty good movie, but if you don't know the lore, you're going to be pretty confused.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Not much of a heist
Finding Steve McQueen is a heist drama centring around a young man who idolises Steve McQueen, and follows him as he joins a gang of thieves as they plot to steal millions from President Nixon’s secret funds. This is loosely based around a true story and is told from the point of view of the gang’s getaway driver Harry Barber, with his McQueen inspired locks and mannerisms.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Vikings - Season 1 in TV
May 15, 2017
Historically Accurate in terms of culture (2 more)
Doesn't hold back on the gore and grim nature of Vikings
Great Character development
A Historically accurate fantasy series
Vikings was a show that I didn't begin watching until it was already 3 seasons in. However it is a show that I instantly fell in love with because it was very different from any show like it.
Many shows these days such as Game Of Thrones and Vikings, etc. are becoming more daring with reaching a specific audience rather than the wider audience gained through less graphically violent shows. These shows are not afraid to show us a blade slicing through someones flesh or the blood pouring out of the wounds.
Vikings, as known throughout history, have been recorded as violent and brutish warriors who slaughtered hundreds of men and women during their travels to England and other European lands. The show does not hold back when it comes to portraying their brutality in battle. It is not all brutality and war though, as the drama aspect of this show, is shown through the main cast in their homeland of Scandinavia.
Ragnar is definitely a great character to follow as we watch him rise to become Jarl of his home town. Portrayed by Travis Fimmel (Warcraft: The Beginning / The Baytown Outlaws), the character of Ragnar Lothbrok is one we see develop in many different ways. Based upon the legend of a man of the same name, who, though recorded throughout history, is a character that some historians are unsure existed, thought his sons are definitely recorded to have existed. The only way I can explain this is that his legend is so incredible that there are some who chose to believe it and others who chose to believe it is simply stories made up by travelers and poets.
Either way, this show is a brilliant fantasy drama that combines fiction with historical accuracy. This first season follows Ragnar as he begins his journey to defy the Jarl of Kattegat and sail towards England to raid, pillage and bring back treasure unlike anything the north had ever seen.
The soundtrack to the series is also brilliant and really brings the scenes of the films to life, and give them a beautiful atmosphere that sucks you into the moment, and leaves you on the edge of your seat.
With a great cast, excellent writers and great directing and cinematography, Vikings is beautiful, thrilling and horrifying and certainly, in my opinion, one of the greatest shows I have ever watched.
Many shows these days such as Game Of Thrones and Vikings, etc. are becoming more daring with reaching a specific audience rather than the wider audience gained through less graphically violent shows. These shows are not afraid to show us a blade slicing through someones flesh or the blood pouring out of the wounds.
Vikings, as known throughout history, have been recorded as violent and brutish warriors who slaughtered hundreds of men and women during their travels to England and other European lands. The show does not hold back when it comes to portraying their brutality in battle. It is not all brutality and war though, as the drama aspect of this show, is shown through the main cast in their homeland of Scandinavia.
Ragnar is definitely a great character to follow as we watch him rise to become Jarl of his home town. Portrayed by Travis Fimmel (Warcraft: The Beginning / The Baytown Outlaws), the character of Ragnar Lothbrok is one we see develop in many different ways. Based upon the legend of a man of the same name, who, though recorded throughout history, is a character that some historians are unsure existed, thought his sons are definitely recorded to have existed. The only way I can explain this is that his legend is so incredible that there are some who chose to believe it and others who chose to believe it is simply stories made up by travelers and poets.
Either way, this show is a brilliant fantasy drama that combines fiction with historical accuracy. This first season follows Ragnar as he begins his journey to defy the Jarl of Kattegat and sail towards England to raid, pillage and bring back treasure unlike anything the north had ever seen.
The soundtrack to the series is also brilliant and really brings the scenes of the films to life, and give them a beautiful atmosphere that sucks you into the moment, and leaves you on the edge of your seat.
With a great cast, excellent writers and great directing and cinematography, Vikings is beautiful, thrilling and horrifying and certainly, in my opinion, one of the greatest shows I have ever watched.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Vikings in TV
Feb 4, 2018
Somewhat historically accurate (2 more)
Visually Compelling
Gripping drama that keeps you wanting more
One of my favourite shows of all time
Vikings, for the first 3 seasons, tells the story of the rise to power of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok, though the character himself in reality, despite being written about in sagas and poems from that era, remains a mystery to historians to this day.
In the show, Ragnar Lothbrok is portrayed by Travis Fimmel, who is fantastic in any role he has taken from what I have seen of his work. As Ragnar he excels at portraying many aspects of the character, from a loving father, to a fierce warrior. Though you still believe that he has nothing but the best intentions for his people, as well as himself. He is a somewhat difficult man to read as he may seem selfish at time, and yet his actions help the people around him, whilst other times, his actions may appear to be for the benefit of others, when really it is an act of selfishness. No matter what he does though, he does it well.
However, there is more to this show that just Ragnar Lothbrok. There is his wife, Lagertha, a famous shield maiden portrayed by Katheryn Winnick, who is able to achieve the same talent as Fimmel, by portraying the many sides to the character she plays. She is a loving mother, wife, though sometimes troubled, but at the end of the day, she is a badass. A strong female protagonist with a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Her story unfolds more from season 2 onwards and it is one that keeps you on edge, wanting to know what the future holds for Lagertha. Sadly, we have no seers to tell us what the gods have in store for her, we can only watch in suspense as the events unfold.
Then there are the Sons of Ragnar, who in later seasons, become the pinnacle of the show. The main focus, that will shape the future of what the show will become. All of them are incredible actors who portray their characters to the best they can be. My two favourites, are Bjorn Ironside, portrayed by Alender Ludwig, and Ivar The Boneless, portrayed by Alex Høgh Andersen. Both of these young actors excel in creating the best of their characters. Bjorn being the eldest of Ragnars sons, is the one you may become attached to most as he is there from the very beginning, portrayed at first by the young, Nathan O'Toole. In season 2 however, Bjorn is growing into a tall and strong young man, and this is where Ludwig excels. You believe that he is still young and blind from the world as it truly is, but enough so that you can believe that he is willing to learn more and like his father, wishes to know as much as he can about the world.
Ivar on the other hand, is brilliant for his own reason. Andersen's portrayal is fierce, creepy and brutal. He portrays a young man who is willing to overcome any obstacle including his own disability, to prove himself as a great warrior, and a force to be reckoned with. His constant anger is always on display as well, even when he is happy. You can see just from the expressions on his face, that he has so much going through his mind. So much cunning and so much emotion that he does not show. He is phenomanal in his role.
Though there are many other characters and actors to talk about such as Gustaf Skarsgard, who's brother, Bill, recently became notorious for his role as the new updated remake of Pennywise the Clown in IT (2017), as well as Clive Standen as Rollo, Ragnar's brother who is always dancing between loyalty and betrayal. Every cast member in this show is brilliant in what they have achieved with their characters and you will come to enjoy all of them.
The visuals of the show are stunning, with lots of blood and gore, comes a historically accurate representation of the lives and locations of the Vikings of that era. From visions, to battles, to drama. The visual effects keep you entranced and bring the story to life, which makes this show so incredible in my opinion. The best part, is that with each season and each episode, the story and visuals get better and better and leave you wanting more.
The show overall, is brilliant, and I have watched it many times over from the beginning, and it never gets boring. I love the historical accuracy mixed with fantasy elements and drama, which keep it interesting, but more importantly I how the show makes the audience feel. I have felt saddened, shocked and joyful throughout this show as it brilliantly allows each character to grow and flourish into the best they can be. It leaves you in suspense of what it is to come and when the show ends, I shall be very sad, but I have high hopes that they end the show with as much power as they put in each episode from the very beginning. I will continue to watch this show multiple times with each season as I wait for the next to be released. I am on my third run through of the show whilst waiting for part 2 of season 5. As I said before, it just keeps getting better.
In the show, Ragnar Lothbrok is portrayed by Travis Fimmel, who is fantastic in any role he has taken from what I have seen of his work. As Ragnar he excels at portraying many aspects of the character, from a loving father, to a fierce warrior. Though you still believe that he has nothing but the best intentions for his people, as well as himself. He is a somewhat difficult man to read as he may seem selfish at time, and yet his actions help the people around him, whilst other times, his actions may appear to be for the benefit of others, when really it is an act of selfishness. No matter what he does though, he does it well.
However, there is more to this show that just Ragnar Lothbrok. There is his wife, Lagertha, a famous shield maiden portrayed by Katheryn Winnick, who is able to achieve the same talent as Fimmel, by portraying the many sides to the character she plays. She is a loving mother, wife, though sometimes troubled, but at the end of the day, she is a badass. A strong female protagonist with a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Her story unfolds more from season 2 onwards and it is one that keeps you on edge, wanting to know what the future holds for Lagertha. Sadly, we have no seers to tell us what the gods have in store for her, we can only watch in suspense as the events unfold.
Then there are the Sons of Ragnar, who in later seasons, become the pinnacle of the show. The main focus, that will shape the future of what the show will become. All of them are incredible actors who portray their characters to the best they can be. My two favourites, are Bjorn Ironside, portrayed by Alender Ludwig, and Ivar The Boneless, portrayed by Alex Høgh Andersen. Both of these young actors excel in creating the best of their characters. Bjorn being the eldest of Ragnars sons, is the one you may become attached to most as he is there from the very beginning, portrayed at first by the young, Nathan O'Toole. In season 2 however, Bjorn is growing into a tall and strong young man, and this is where Ludwig excels. You believe that he is still young and blind from the world as it truly is, but enough so that you can believe that he is willing to learn more and like his father, wishes to know as much as he can about the world.
Ivar on the other hand, is brilliant for his own reason. Andersen's portrayal is fierce, creepy and brutal. He portrays a young man who is willing to overcome any obstacle including his own disability, to prove himself as a great warrior, and a force to be reckoned with. His constant anger is always on display as well, even when he is happy. You can see just from the expressions on his face, that he has so much going through his mind. So much cunning and so much emotion that he does not show. He is phenomanal in his role.
Though there are many other characters and actors to talk about such as Gustaf Skarsgard, who's brother, Bill, recently became notorious for his role as the new updated remake of Pennywise the Clown in IT (2017), as well as Clive Standen as Rollo, Ragnar's brother who is always dancing between loyalty and betrayal. Every cast member in this show is brilliant in what they have achieved with their characters and you will come to enjoy all of them.
The visuals of the show are stunning, with lots of blood and gore, comes a historically accurate representation of the lives and locations of the Vikings of that era. From visions, to battles, to drama. The visual effects keep you entranced and bring the story to life, which makes this show so incredible in my opinion. The best part, is that with each season and each episode, the story and visuals get better and better and leave you wanting more.
The show overall, is brilliant, and I have watched it many times over from the beginning, and it never gets boring. I love the historical accuracy mixed with fantasy elements and drama, which keep it interesting, but more importantly I how the show makes the audience feel. I have felt saddened, shocked and joyful throughout this show as it brilliantly allows each character to grow and flourish into the best they can be. It leaves you in suspense of what it is to come and when the show ends, I shall be very sad, but I have high hopes that they end the show with as much power as they put in each episode from the very beginning. I will continue to watch this show multiple times with each season as I wait for the next to be released. I am on my third run through of the show whilst waiting for part 2 of season 5. As I said before, it just keeps getting better.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html