Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Noah (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Biblical epics never seem to translate well from paper to the big screen. Mel Gibson’s 2004 misfire, The Passion of the Christ, showed just how difficult it was to turn promising source material into silver screen gold.
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
My rating 3.5
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Written by the English Pen Award winner Laia Jufresa (and excellently translated by Sophie Hughes) <i>Umami</i> is a story of the troubled lives of a small community in Mexico as they go through various stages of grief. What this story reveals is that everyone deals with heartache in his or her own personal way, however the things they do can affect everyone around them.
Set in Belldrop Mews, Mexico City, five characters give an account of their own experiences over a five-year period, which when combined together produce an overview of life within the mews. Firstly there is Ana (2004), a preteen determined to plant her own garden in the depressing back yard of her family home. Despite her steps to do something positive, she and her family are still mourning the death of her little sister Luz who drowned a few years ago. The second perspective comes from Marina Mendoza (2003), a young adult artist suffering from an eating disorder whilst dealing with memories of her childhood.
Alfonso, the aging owner of the mews, begins his story in 2002 a couple of years after the death of his wife. Previously he was an anthropologist obsessed with the concept of <i>umami</i>, a Japanese word meaning <i>“a savory taste; one of the five basic tastes.”</i> He is an old soul that has fallen into depression, feeling, like Ana, a misfit. The final two narrators are young girls: Pina (2001) who is Ana’s best friend, and Luz (2000), Ana’s five year old sister shortly before she died. Both speak of loneliness as they look at the world through childishly naïve eyes. Pina is suffering the effects of her parents’ constant fighting, whereas Luz is crying out for attention from her family who will not let her join in the “big girl” activities.
<i>Umami</i> may not be a happy book but it has a very powerful voice. None of the characters have yet completely recovered from their experiences however they are all (barring Luz) making positive progress. Without knowing it, each member of the Belldrop Mews community is encouraging the rest as they drag themselves out from the depths of their despair – some by aspiring to be like another, and others listening to what their neighbours are telling them.
The message of this story is about the benefits of a community. Whether big or small, being within a group of people can prevent you from wallowing in your dark feelings and begin to continue with your life instead. This is something that the world at large would profit from.
The unconventional style of <i>Umami</i> may not be agreeable with some readers due to its lack of a clear beginning, middle and end. In fact it does not have a conclusion at all, leaving nothing fully resolved. Yet Jufresa did not intend it to end “happily ever after,” real life is not like that; but what is true is that with time and exposure to positive relationships things can get better.
The aspect preventing a higher rating is the occasional allusion to sexual content, especially from the mouths of girls too young to fully understand the concept. This was uncomfortable to read, however thankfully the majority of the novel was free of unpleasant imagery. <i>Umami</i> is down to earth, relatable and moving; Laia Jufresa is definitely an author to watch.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Written by the English Pen Award winner Laia Jufresa (and excellently translated by Sophie Hughes) <i>Umami</i> is a story of the troubled lives of a small community in Mexico as they go through various stages of grief. What this story reveals is that everyone deals with heartache in his or her own personal way, however the things they do can affect everyone around them.
Set in Belldrop Mews, Mexico City, five characters give an account of their own experiences over a five-year period, which when combined together produce an overview of life within the mews. Firstly there is Ana (2004), a preteen determined to plant her own garden in the depressing back yard of her family home. Despite her steps to do something positive, she and her family are still mourning the death of her little sister Luz who drowned a few years ago. The second perspective comes from Marina Mendoza (2003), a young adult artist suffering from an eating disorder whilst dealing with memories of her childhood.
Alfonso, the aging owner of the mews, begins his story in 2002 a couple of years after the death of his wife. Previously he was an anthropologist obsessed with the concept of <i>umami</i>, a Japanese word meaning <i>“a savory taste; one of the five basic tastes.”</i> He is an old soul that has fallen into depression, feeling, like Ana, a misfit. The final two narrators are young girls: Pina (2001) who is Ana’s best friend, and Luz (2000), Ana’s five year old sister shortly before she died. Both speak of loneliness as they look at the world through childishly naïve eyes. Pina is suffering the effects of her parents’ constant fighting, whereas Luz is crying out for attention from her family who will not let her join in the “big girl” activities.
<i>Umami</i> may not be a happy book but it has a very powerful voice. None of the characters have yet completely recovered from their experiences however they are all (barring Luz) making positive progress. Without knowing it, each member of the Belldrop Mews community is encouraging the rest as they drag themselves out from the depths of their despair – some by aspiring to be like another, and others listening to what their neighbours are telling them.
The message of this story is about the benefits of a community. Whether big or small, being within a group of people can prevent you from wallowing in your dark feelings and begin to continue with your life instead. This is something that the world at large would profit from.
The unconventional style of <i>Umami</i> may not be agreeable with some readers due to its lack of a clear beginning, middle and end. In fact it does not have a conclusion at all, leaving nothing fully resolved. Yet Jufresa did not intend it to end “happily ever after,” real life is not like that; but what is true is that with time and exposure to positive relationships things can get better.
The aspect preventing a higher rating is the occasional allusion to sexual content, especially from the mouths of girls too young to fully understand the concept. This was uncomfortable to read, however thankfully the majority of the novel was free of unpleasant imagery. <i>Umami</i> is down to earth, relatable and moving; Laia Jufresa is definitely an author to watch.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney is now living off the map, helping women in need of a helping hand, when the killer tracks her down, she comes to help from her hiding where she will come face to face with the true killer. Dewey is now working on the set of the Stab films, he is helping one of the stars of the film understand her character and gets stuck into the investigation this time. Gale isn’t as cut throat as she once was, her career didn’t go as well as it could have, she must put up with the needy actress who is playing her in the film. Detective Mark Kincaid is the cop assigned to try and track down the killer willing to push boundaries to uncover the truth. We get a string of actors that will be playing to the roles of the characters in the franchise, with Jennifer Jolie preparing to be Gale being the highlight of these and if not the whole movie. Our suspect list is long which only adds to the mystery we might be seeing through the film.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return and give good performances through the film, they don’t build on what we know from them, Parker Posey however steals the whole movie, every scene she is in we want to see more from her. This film does suffer from having too many actors which does stop giving the stars the time required to truly shine.
Story – The story follows the production of the third ‘Stab’ movie which is from the series of films that are based on the events of the Scream films, that starts getting its own body count from a new killer with connections to Sidney’s mother. This could easily be considered the weakest story of the three so far in the franchise, this is mostly because of the idea of being on the film set with the actors and real people gets overly complicated and takes away from the suspense we previously experience. As for the twists we learn the rules that make things feel like a larger scale operation which even after seeing the previous film do fit together much like what many of the 80s slashers did.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the slasher side of things which are all routine enough and work for the film, with the mystery coming from just who is truly behind the murders.
Settings – Setting the film in Hollywood, mostly in and around a film set makes us relive the moments we have gotten to know through the years and most importantly show us how a film could be getting made.
Special Effects – The effects in the movie continue the style we have seen before, it gives us the blood we need to make look real without being over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The continuing reference to how difficult Scream 2 was to make.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the supporting characters, mostly the actors don’t get much screen time.
Final Thoughts – This is the third part of one of the greatest horror trilogies, it continues to show us behind the curtain of horror movies with a twist we didn’t know about to keep the story feeling fresh throughout the film.
Overall: This is how to make a trilogy.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return and give good performances through the film, they don’t build on what we know from them, Parker Posey however steals the whole movie, every scene she is in we want to see more from her. This film does suffer from having too many actors which does stop giving the stars the time required to truly shine.
Story – The story follows the production of the third ‘Stab’ movie which is from the series of films that are based on the events of the Scream films, that starts getting its own body count from a new killer with connections to Sidney’s mother. This could easily be considered the weakest story of the three so far in the franchise, this is mostly because of the idea of being on the film set with the actors and real people gets overly complicated and takes away from the suspense we previously experience. As for the twists we learn the rules that make things feel like a larger scale operation which even after seeing the previous film do fit together much like what many of the 80s slashers did.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the slasher side of things which are all routine enough and work for the film, with the mystery coming from just who is truly behind the murders.
Settings – Setting the film in Hollywood, mostly in and around a film set makes us relive the moments we have gotten to know through the years and most importantly show us how a film could be getting made.
Special Effects – The effects in the movie continue the style we have seen before, it gives us the blood we need to make look real without being over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The continuing reference to how difficult Scream 2 was to make.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the supporting characters, mostly the actors don’t get much screen time.
Final Thoughts – This is the third part of one of the greatest horror trilogies, it continues to show us behind the curtain of horror movies with a twist we didn’t know about to keep the story feeling fresh throughout the film.
Overall: This is how to make a trilogy.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Anti-Social (2015) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Anti-Social starts as we meet street artist Dee (Sulkin), his model girlfriend Kirsten (Markle) and his armed robber brother Marcus (Myers) who has been making the headlines for all the wrong reasons now. Dee is about to be given motivation from Philip (Berkel) who sees his potential as an artist, while Marcus is getting deeper into the world of crime.
Dee is given the chance to escape the rough streets of crime, only to find himself being caught in the middle of the drug war his brother has started in the streets of London.
Thoughts on Anti-Social
Characters – Dee is a street artist in London, think of him like the Banksy of the local era. His art work has grabbed the attention of many with his big opportunity coming his way, when his brother gets into trouble, he is forced to balance his own future for his brother’s. Marcus is part of an armed robbery gang that are terrorising London, he has rivals from both sides of the law which has put him in the middle of a drug war, he never asks his brother to help him. Kirsten is the model girlfriend of Dee’s, she is an American that isn’t used to the world Dee is from, she doesn’t do much else other than support Dee. Philip is the man from the art world that could easily make Dee’s life better and is willing to make this happen.
Performances – Gregg Sulkin in the leading role is solid enough, we see his difficult life decision being made well enough, though he does lack that true charisma for a leading role. Meghan Markle is the biggest draw for this film now because of her royal status, only she is completely wasted here, given next to nothing to do. Josh Myers gives us a character which only leaves us hating his character, this is something you will see from nearly all of the criminal side of this film.
Story – The story here follows two brothers whose lives are going in very different directions only for the one that is about to escape, needing to return to criminal world where he must make up for his brother’s error. The way this story is told feels very messy, the idea that the street artist getting a bring break is simple and effective along with the idea that he could be made to make a decision about his future. It is the time spent with the criminal brother, we gain no sympathy for him or his crew, we learn nothing about why they are committing these crimes doesn’t help. The number of gangs also isn’t shown in anyway to make us truly understand the world we are living in and while the final act does have tension, it seems to come from the wrong reasoning.
Crime – The crime world we enter in this film is gangs and robbers, we focus on one young man about to leave this world, who gets dragged back into it after his brother’s action, it shows how in London people are willing to just commit crimes for the fun of it.
Settings – The film is set in London and shows us just where the criminals will act to try and make a living from hurting other people.
Scene of the Movie – The airport.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No sympathy for the criminals.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy crime movie which only ends up making you not care about the characters like it should.
Overall: Messy and drags along.
Dee is given the chance to escape the rough streets of crime, only to find himself being caught in the middle of the drug war his brother has started in the streets of London.
Thoughts on Anti-Social
Characters – Dee is a street artist in London, think of him like the Banksy of the local era. His art work has grabbed the attention of many with his big opportunity coming his way, when his brother gets into trouble, he is forced to balance his own future for his brother’s. Marcus is part of an armed robbery gang that are terrorising London, he has rivals from both sides of the law which has put him in the middle of a drug war, he never asks his brother to help him. Kirsten is the model girlfriend of Dee’s, she is an American that isn’t used to the world Dee is from, she doesn’t do much else other than support Dee. Philip is the man from the art world that could easily make Dee’s life better and is willing to make this happen.
Performances – Gregg Sulkin in the leading role is solid enough, we see his difficult life decision being made well enough, though he does lack that true charisma for a leading role. Meghan Markle is the biggest draw for this film now because of her royal status, only she is completely wasted here, given next to nothing to do. Josh Myers gives us a character which only leaves us hating his character, this is something you will see from nearly all of the criminal side of this film.
Story – The story here follows two brothers whose lives are going in very different directions only for the one that is about to escape, needing to return to criminal world where he must make up for his brother’s error. The way this story is told feels very messy, the idea that the street artist getting a bring break is simple and effective along with the idea that he could be made to make a decision about his future. It is the time spent with the criminal brother, we gain no sympathy for him or his crew, we learn nothing about why they are committing these crimes doesn’t help. The number of gangs also isn’t shown in anyway to make us truly understand the world we are living in and while the final act does have tension, it seems to come from the wrong reasoning.
Crime – The crime world we enter in this film is gangs and robbers, we focus on one young man about to leave this world, who gets dragged back into it after his brother’s action, it shows how in London people are willing to just commit crimes for the fun of it.
Settings – The film is set in London and shows us just where the criminals will act to try and make a living from hurting other people.
Scene of the Movie – The airport.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No sympathy for the criminals.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy crime movie which only ends up making you not care about the characters like it should.
Overall: Messy and drags along.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Sexy Beast (2000) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Sexy Beast starts as we meet retired safecracker Gal (Winstone) living the life of luxury in a Spanish villa which he enjoys relaxing by the pool enjoying his retirement. His retirement is put to the test when brutal gangster Don Logan (Kingsley) arrives in Spain to try and force him into doing one more job for him, he won’t take no for an answer.
Reluctantly taking the job, Gal returns to London and as most heist style movies, things don’t go to plan.
Thoughts on Sexy Beast
Characters – Gal was once the go to safecracker, now he is in retirement in Spain loving his life in the sun with his pool and friends, he has zero interest in returning to the game even after Don Logan pushes him. He stays relaxed through each scene because he knows his answer will always be no. he does reluctantly return for this last job mostly to get rid of Don. Don Logan is the brutal gangster, he knows who he wants for the jobs and this time it is Gal, he will not take ‘No’ as an answer, he will get violent and his outbursts will be the things you remember the most. Teddy is the man that the job is for, a fellow gangster that wants the best men for the job. DeeDee is the wife of Gal, she will stand by Gal in every decision even after the endless insults thrown their way.
Performances – Ray Winstone is great in this leading role, he is the perfect choice for a cockney criminal who knows there is a better life out there away from London. Ben Kingsley clearly steals every single scene in this movie with his performance that is filed with so much anger and aggression, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. Ian McShane is great too where he brings us a calmer gangster who is also filled with anger. These three take most of the spotlight away from any other performers in the film.
Story – The story follows a retired criminal that gets forced to return to the game for one final job by an aggressive gangster, where this film does stand out from the other films in this genre, is that our hero Gal is 100% not interested in returning as most film give us the idea of ‘ok, I will do it’ on an easier formula. The story does have a nice twist on how things go and gives us the characters we could believe are from this world. if you are looking for a heist storyline, you will be disappointed though as this film focuses on the idea of getting the man to do the job.
Crime/Thriller – The crime world we enter giving us gangsters which will not take no for an answer, we don’t learn enough of their previous lives in the world though, only going on reputations.
Settings – The film uses Spain for the setting which gives us the retirement feel for a Brit to take, the sun increases the idea of the heat in the scenes.
Scene of the Movie – The heated argument.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of heist action.
Final Thoughts – This is a true British crime film, it has great characters and a stunning performance from Ben Kingsley.
Overall: British Crime 101
Reluctantly taking the job, Gal returns to London and as most heist style movies, things don’t go to plan.
Thoughts on Sexy Beast
Characters – Gal was once the go to safecracker, now he is in retirement in Spain loving his life in the sun with his pool and friends, he has zero interest in returning to the game even after Don Logan pushes him. He stays relaxed through each scene because he knows his answer will always be no. he does reluctantly return for this last job mostly to get rid of Don. Don Logan is the brutal gangster, he knows who he wants for the jobs and this time it is Gal, he will not take ‘No’ as an answer, he will get violent and his outbursts will be the things you remember the most. Teddy is the man that the job is for, a fellow gangster that wants the best men for the job. DeeDee is the wife of Gal, she will stand by Gal in every decision even after the endless insults thrown their way.
Performances – Ray Winstone is great in this leading role, he is the perfect choice for a cockney criminal who knows there is a better life out there away from London. Ben Kingsley clearly steals every single scene in this movie with his performance that is filed with so much anger and aggression, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. Ian McShane is great too where he brings us a calmer gangster who is also filled with anger. These three take most of the spotlight away from any other performers in the film.
Story – The story follows a retired criminal that gets forced to return to the game for one final job by an aggressive gangster, where this film does stand out from the other films in this genre, is that our hero Gal is 100% not interested in returning as most film give us the idea of ‘ok, I will do it’ on an easier formula. The story does have a nice twist on how things go and gives us the characters we could believe are from this world. if you are looking for a heist storyline, you will be disappointed though as this film focuses on the idea of getting the man to do the job.
Crime/Thriller – The crime world we enter giving us gangsters which will not take no for an answer, we don’t learn enough of their previous lives in the world though, only going on reputations.
Settings – The film uses Spain for the setting which gives us the retirement feel for a Brit to take, the sun increases the idea of the heat in the scenes.
Scene of the Movie – The heated argument.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of heist action.
Final Thoughts – This is a true British crime film, it has great characters and a stunning performance from Ben Kingsley.
Overall: British Crime 101
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Minority Report (2002) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
I Knew I Would Love it Before I Watched it...See What I Did There?
In the future, “precogs” help predict a murder before it happens. When they predict that John Anderton, head of the precrime divison, will be the next killer, Anderton has to go on the run to prove his innocence.
Acting: 10
We give Tom Cruise shit for being crazy in real life. Say what you want about him on a personal level, the energy that he brings to the big screen is excellent. The way he taps into the emotions of a father that just lost his son hits you with a strong emotional tie to the movie.
Outside of a strong performance from Cruise as John Anderton, it’s also the lesser roles that drive this movie into classic status. Actors/actresses like Lois Smith as the matter-of-fact Dr. Hinneman and Colin Farrell sticking his nose into every single scene as Detective Danny Witwer bring fresh life to this movie throughout its duration. The female performances were particularly strong. This movie just doesn’t function the same without wonderful actresses Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris helping to drive the story.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes really set the stage for the insanity to come. We see the precrime unit led by Anderton moving on their next target: A man who catches his wife in bed cheating, or at least he will. The act has yet to happen, but the unit is there to stop it before it does.
Characters: 10
Anderton is a troubled cop stuck between a terrible past and a troubling future. You can relate to his pain and why he has ended up the way he has. Like Anderton, each character has enough depth and backstory to make you care about them one way or the other. I was particularly drawn to Agatha, head of the precogs, and her story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
There is a scene in this movie I consider one of the greatest in any film ever done. Anderton has captured the precog Agatha to try and get into her brain to unearth his innocence. With the police in hot pursuit, he has to escape through a mall using Agatha as a cognitive guide to help him escape danger. It is truly a brilliant layout of a scene and it really enhances this movie. This is a movie packed with a number of those same type of scenes that leave an impact in your brain.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
A brilliant story from cover to cover. Steven Spielberg pulls out the heart and glitz of this movie with true wonder that only he can achieve. There is a reason I consider him the GOAT, because his stories wow you while making you think and feel at the same time. This story couldn’t have been put together more perfectly.
Resolution: 10
The ending couldn’t have been more perfect. It’s all about redemption and starting over. I won’t spoil it by going into further detail.
Overall: 100
Every now and then a movie comes along that manages to sit with me for a long time. It’s the primary reason I consider Minority Report to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and #3 on my all-time list. Quite frankly, it’s just plain dope.
Acting: 10
We give Tom Cruise shit for being crazy in real life. Say what you want about him on a personal level, the energy that he brings to the big screen is excellent. The way he taps into the emotions of a father that just lost his son hits you with a strong emotional tie to the movie.
Outside of a strong performance from Cruise as John Anderton, it’s also the lesser roles that drive this movie into classic status. Actors/actresses like Lois Smith as the matter-of-fact Dr. Hinneman and Colin Farrell sticking his nose into every single scene as Detective Danny Witwer bring fresh life to this movie throughout its duration. The female performances were particularly strong. This movie just doesn’t function the same without wonderful actresses Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris helping to drive the story.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes really set the stage for the insanity to come. We see the precrime unit led by Anderton moving on their next target: A man who catches his wife in bed cheating, or at least he will. The act has yet to happen, but the unit is there to stop it before it does.
Characters: 10
Anderton is a troubled cop stuck between a terrible past and a troubling future. You can relate to his pain and why he has ended up the way he has. Like Anderton, each character has enough depth and backstory to make you care about them one way or the other. I was particularly drawn to Agatha, head of the precogs, and her story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
There is a scene in this movie I consider one of the greatest in any film ever done. Anderton has captured the precog Agatha to try and get into her brain to unearth his innocence. With the police in hot pursuit, he has to escape through a mall using Agatha as a cognitive guide to help him escape danger. It is truly a brilliant layout of a scene and it really enhances this movie. This is a movie packed with a number of those same type of scenes that leave an impact in your brain.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
A brilliant story from cover to cover. Steven Spielberg pulls out the heart and glitz of this movie with true wonder that only he can achieve. There is a reason I consider him the GOAT, because his stories wow you while making you think and feel at the same time. This story couldn’t have been put together more perfectly.
Resolution: 10
The ending couldn’t have been more perfect. It’s all about redemption and starting over. I won’t spoil it by going into further detail.
Overall: 100
Every now and then a movie comes along that manages to sit with me for a long time. It’s the primary reason I consider Minority Report to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and #3 on my all-time list. Quite frankly, it’s just plain dope.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Cherry (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
Tom Holland and Joe and Anthony Russo have teamed up again but this time on a project which is about as far away from the Marvel universe as possible. Based on the book Nico Walker; “Cherry” is a compelling tale told in segments that depict a different style and phase of the main character’s life.
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Wall (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
US Ranger Sniper, Staff Sargent Shane Matthews (John Cena), and his spotter, Sargent Allen “Eyes” Isaac, are investigating a distress call in the hot Iraqi desert above an oil pipeline construction area. From their camouflaged position they can see several dead bodies. They have waited close to 18 hours while sitting and observing the bodies and landscape, trying to determine what happened. Matthews decides the dead men below them must have been killed by a raid and after the hours of waiting he leaves the covered position to investigate up close. While Isaac believes that there is a chance this could be the work of a skilled sniper, he reluctantly agrees to let Matthews go.
As Isaac watches from cover Mathews surveys the carnage from up close and quickly realizes that Isaac must have been right. All of the men below were killed with skilled shots to the head. Before he can find cover or find where the shooter was positioned Mathews is shot in the stomach and falls to the ground. Isaac rushes to his aide but as soon as he gets close to his comrade he is shot in the knee. As shots rain down on him Isaac dives for cover behind a dilapidated wall. Now he is stuck behind fragile cover bleeding with his partner unable to move due to his wounds. Isaac scrabbles to radio for help but he only finds his radio antenna has been shot off. He has no idea where the shots came from only that he may be in the only safe place. Isaac is now suck behind a wall with no way to get to his severely wounded friend or call in reinforcements. Then over his short range two-way radio a voice can be heard and it’s not Matthews or help…it’s the enemy sniper.
The Wall is a suspense film directed by Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow, Fair Game and Mr. and Mrs. Smith). Overall the small cast gave good performances. I thought that John Cena did a good job in a limited role in this film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did an adequate job, but since he was on screen by himself for the majority of the film I thought his performance was at times week. He was also really compelling at times which is why I think overall it was adequate. I think it was a good story but the build up to the end lacked the true suspense that could have made it a great story. I just didn’t have the ending that really made me sit on the edge of my seat. It felt like what was happening was inevitable. I commend the originality of the overall story. But when I am going to watch a suspenseful film I want just a little bit more. To me it lacked an edge and really captivating moment at the end. One of the things the film got right was how realistic it felt. The cinematography was gritty and fit the story really well.
Overall I came out of this film feeling good but thought that it was missing a little something. Worth a second viewing sometime in the future but probably save it for video or on demand.
As Isaac watches from cover Mathews surveys the carnage from up close and quickly realizes that Isaac must have been right. All of the men below were killed with skilled shots to the head. Before he can find cover or find where the shooter was positioned Mathews is shot in the stomach and falls to the ground. Isaac rushes to his aide but as soon as he gets close to his comrade he is shot in the knee. As shots rain down on him Isaac dives for cover behind a dilapidated wall. Now he is stuck behind fragile cover bleeding with his partner unable to move due to his wounds. Isaac scrabbles to radio for help but he only finds his radio antenna has been shot off. He has no idea where the shots came from only that he may be in the only safe place. Isaac is now suck behind a wall with no way to get to his severely wounded friend or call in reinforcements. Then over his short range two-way radio a voice can be heard and it’s not Matthews or help…it’s the enemy sniper.
The Wall is a suspense film directed by Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow, Fair Game and Mr. and Mrs. Smith). Overall the small cast gave good performances. I thought that John Cena did a good job in a limited role in this film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did an adequate job, but since he was on screen by himself for the majority of the film I thought his performance was at times week. He was also really compelling at times which is why I think overall it was adequate. I think it was a good story but the build up to the end lacked the true suspense that could have made it a great story. I just didn’t have the ending that really made me sit on the edge of my seat. It felt like what was happening was inevitable. I commend the originality of the overall story. But when I am going to watch a suspenseful film I want just a little bit more. To me it lacked an edge and really captivating moment at the end. One of the things the film got right was how realistic it felt. The cinematography was gritty and fit the story really well.
Overall I came out of this film feeling good but thought that it was missing a little something. Worth a second viewing sometime in the future but probably save it for video or on demand.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.