Search
Search results
Fortune's Wheel (The Meonbridge Chronicles #1)
Book
How do you recover from the havoc wrought by history's cruellest plague? It's June 1349. In...
Historical Fiction Historical Romance Medieval England
The Man In Black
Book
Naive dreamer Fenimore James runs from home and goes west to become a famous outlaw––Simon Shaw....
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Anarchic and very funny script, with some great visual gags (1 more)
Elba, Davis and Robbie all great. As is new name Daniela Melchior.
What a difference a "The" makes! The original "Suicide Squad" from 2016 was a botched and lacklustre affair, getting just 5/10 from me. James Gunn's semi-reboot is hyper-violent, overlong, totally ludicrous but a whole bunch of fun.
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 10, 2022
Ultra-Violent...and a TON of Fun!
Early conversations surrounding the new Brad Pitt action flick BULLET TRAIN label this film as “Ultra-Violent”.
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Feb 10, 2018 (Updated Feb 10, 2018)
Cover Granny's eyes and ears
The question we must ask ourselves here is: does adding graphic gory violence and F-bombs by the cartload really transform a reasonably formulaic X-men franchise movie into something qualitatively different? Because it seems to me that if you were to make a PG-rated edit of Logan it would not feel that much different from many of the other films in the series. Well, perhaps I exaggerate just a bit, because the film does have a downbeat mood quite unusual for this genre, and the focus on the fragility of its characters does give the actors a lot to work with (though Hugh Jackman is, quite predictably, acted off the screen by Patrick Stewart).
Plot as follows: the year is 2030, or thereabouts, and all is not well for mutantkind, inasmuch as they seem to have died out. A knocking-on-a-bit Wolverine is working as a limo driver and trying to keep a low profile while caring for a frail Charles Xavier, but the appearance of a young mutant girl forces the duo to reassess their priorities.
Maybe the problem is that the first trailer for this film - the one with the Johnny Cash soundtrack - promised something genuinely powerful and melancholic. The song isn't in the movie and neither, really, is the power and melancholy. The movie seems to be trying to tell the story of a conflicted man steeped in violence who tries to find redemption at the end of his life, but Jackman's Wolverine has always been so much of a teddy bear - his 'darkness' and 'edginess' have always felt like corporate branding - that this doesn't really work.
Still, the film is well-assembled and its vision of a dystopian near-future America is both engaging and consisting. The film's willingness to simply not worry about franchise continuity is also kind of refreshing. With the future of the X-franchise apparently somewhat up in the air, this is at the very least a superior entry to mark the departure of at least one of its mainstays.
Plot as follows: the year is 2030, or thereabouts, and all is not well for mutantkind, inasmuch as they seem to have died out. A knocking-on-a-bit Wolverine is working as a limo driver and trying to keep a low profile while caring for a frail Charles Xavier, but the appearance of a young mutant girl forces the duo to reassess their priorities.
Maybe the problem is that the first trailer for this film - the one with the Johnny Cash soundtrack - promised something genuinely powerful and melancholic. The song isn't in the movie and neither, really, is the power and melancholy. The movie seems to be trying to tell the story of a conflicted man steeped in violence who tries to find redemption at the end of his life, but Jackman's Wolverine has always been so much of a teddy bear - his 'darkness' and 'edginess' have always felt like corporate branding - that this doesn't really work.
Still, the film is well-assembled and its vision of a dystopian near-future America is both engaging and consisting. The film's willingness to simply not worry about franchise continuity is also kind of refreshing. With the future of the X-franchise apparently somewhat up in the air, this is at the very least a superior entry to mark the departure of at least one of its mainstays.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
May 30, 2018
I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The film was written by Quentin Tarantino, and it really shows with the sharp dialogue and crazy plot. The film centres around Clarence (Christian Slater) who meets and marries Alabama (Patricia Arquette). After Clarence goes to get Alabama's belongings, through a series of mishaps, he ends up with suitcase of coke and they decide to sell it. This leads to a wild adventure involving drug dealers, police and movie executives.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
An X-Men spin off, of a poorly received character from an earlier X-Men spin off... FOX must have had some major trust in Ryan Reynolds to give Deadpool the green light after the mess of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
I've been a huge fan of Deadpool comics since as long as I can remember. When I was younger, the 4th wall breaking, the hyper violence, comedy, and self awareness that he is a comic book character, was always something that appealed to me.
So I, like many other Marvel fans, really hated what they did with the character in Origins, and it seems Ryan Reynolds did as well, pitching a rough sequence to FOX which convinced them to give this beloved characters another shot. God bless Ryan Reynolds.
And it paid off in spades. And it's easy to see why - Deadpool is a great movie.
The character himself is near perfect. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and it's great that the studio didn't shy away from an R rating.
The violence in Deadpool is frequent and messy, as is the cursing and crudeness, and the result is hilarious.
The story is told mostly in flashbacks before the big last showdown, and is nicely mapped out, and we're given a hugely likable cast.
Ryan Reynolds is of course , as is T.J. Miller and Morena Baccarin.
I even liked Ed Skrein's villain, Ajax.
Deadpool even manages to sneak in a couple of X-Men with a completely CGI Colossus joining the party, as well as Negasonic Teenage Warhead - the best superhero name ever, and coincidentally the films shining star after Ryan Reynolds - Brianna Hildebrand is a welcome addition to the film, and I genuinely hope that she makes in over to the MCU in the recent Disney Fox merge.
Deadpool is important for a number of reasons - it finally does the character justice. It's also shows that spin off films away from the main X-Men cast can be really decent, and it also shows that R rated superhero films can do the business at the box office.
It's certainly in the top tier of the FOX X-Men series.
I've been a huge fan of Deadpool comics since as long as I can remember. When I was younger, the 4th wall breaking, the hyper violence, comedy, and self awareness that he is a comic book character, was always something that appealed to me.
So I, like many other Marvel fans, really hated what they did with the character in Origins, and it seems Ryan Reynolds did as well, pitching a rough sequence to FOX which convinced them to give this beloved characters another shot. God bless Ryan Reynolds.
And it paid off in spades. And it's easy to see why - Deadpool is a great movie.
The character himself is near perfect. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and it's great that the studio didn't shy away from an R rating.
The violence in Deadpool is frequent and messy, as is the cursing and crudeness, and the result is hilarious.
The story is told mostly in flashbacks before the big last showdown, and is nicely mapped out, and we're given a hugely likable cast.
Ryan Reynolds is of course , as is T.J. Miller and Morena Baccarin.
I even liked Ed Skrein's villain, Ajax.
Deadpool even manages to sneak in a couple of X-Men with a completely CGI Colossus joining the party, as well as Negasonic Teenage Warhead - the best superhero name ever, and coincidentally the films shining star after Ryan Reynolds - Brianna Hildebrand is a welcome addition to the film, and I genuinely hope that she makes in over to the MCU in the recent Disney Fox merge.
Deadpool is important for a number of reasons - it finally does the character justice. It's also shows that spin off films away from the main X-Men cast can be really decent, and it also shows that R rated superhero films can do the business at the box office.
It's certainly in the top tier of the FOX X-Men series.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
As real as a donut
once upon a timeinhollywood is slow paced, tight methodical, uplifting & intricately woven look into the life of a hollywood star in the late 60s. I have to say im not overly a big Tarantino fan (with Inglorious bastards & the hateful eight being my favourites of his) so I wasnt really that excited about seeing this but once I stopped being on edge waiting for something bad to happen & finally sat back letting the film pull me in I knew this wasnt the usual Tarantino movie & I found that strangely compelling. While slow 90% of the run time the film never drags or ever stops being interesting & fascinating. Characters just drip cool are all likeable well fleshed out & distinguishable with every performance absolutely killing it even people that arnt in it much. It just all feels very human, relatable, down to earth & real. Sets are crafted with such perfection & filled with so much painstaking detail that you would swear the film was actually shot in the 60s creating an atmosphere & believability like no other. Accompany that with a smooth soundtrack you have a movie that just pops with style constantly. While everyone does a fantastic job its brad pitt that owns the film, his character is so deep, inspirational & the true hero of the film. Overall I saw this film as a more chill ed out & about how every day life for us all most of the time is way more exciting, thrilling, full of drama & strange events day to day making our lives just as exciting & as watchable as going to the movies & if we all just stopped worrying/stressing for just a second about technology, love, being successful etc life would fall into place, be stress free, we would be healthier & happier. Masterfully filmed, inteligent, mature & well executed this is not only a true love letter to the art of film making but a tribute to movies & how inspiring they can be in general. So sit back enter the decade & relax it may all seem very anti violence at first but the violence does come with time & when it finally hits its shocking & nasty but it feels earned & perfectly timed.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Prince of Thorns in Books
Nov 25, 2019
There are heroes who will stop at nothing. There are anti-heroes. Then there is Jorg.
As wider events across the kingdoms unfold, Jorg must face up to his past in order to survive the present, and make a future for himself and his band of Brothers.
In any other series of books, Jorg would be the villain of the piece. A prince of one of the hundred kingdoms, he is the leader of a violent gang despite being only a teenager. He demonstrates a complete lack of compassion and pursues his goals with a single minded ruthlessness that is unusual even by the standard of 'grimdark' fantasy fiction. But in Lawrence's very capable hands the reader will be rooting for him, despite his highly questionable motives, morals and actions.
The narrative follows two lines, the 'present' and the events of four years previously when Jorg first took up his life of robbery and violence, with other flashbacks into his deeper past, exploring just why he is the way he is.
The characterisation is superb, and the description of the fantasy world Jorg inhabits is spellbinding. As the odds he faces mount, Jorg simply becomes more cunning, more devious and more deadly. If he can't win within the rules that the world has set, he simply changes the rules to suit himself. There is also a terrific streak of black humour that runs throughout the book, which somewhat lifts the tone.
This does show a little as a first novel. The writing is maybe not as fluent as the subsequent works and sometimes the story wanders a little before getting back on track but, just like Jorg, it does what it sets out to do.
If you like your fantasy full of happy elves and heroes prepared to risk all for a noble cause this probably isn't the book for you. If you want to read about someone who will stop at nothing when he is pushed to the limit then this may well be what you are looking for.
Rating: Plenty of graphic violence and sexual references throughout
As wider events across the kingdoms unfold, Jorg must face up to his past in order to survive the present, and make a future for himself and his band of Brothers.
In any other series of books, Jorg would be the villain of the piece. A prince of one of the hundred kingdoms, he is the leader of a violent gang despite being only a teenager. He demonstrates a complete lack of compassion and pursues his goals with a single minded ruthlessness that is unusual even by the standard of 'grimdark' fantasy fiction. But in Lawrence's very capable hands the reader will be rooting for him, despite his highly questionable motives, morals and actions.
The narrative follows two lines, the 'present' and the events of four years previously when Jorg first took up his life of robbery and violence, with other flashbacks into his deeper past, exploring just why he is the way he is.
The characterisation is superb, and the description of the fantasy world Jorg inhabits is spellbinding. As the odds he faces mount, Jorg simply becomes more cunning, more devious and more deadly. If he can't win within the rules that the world has set, he simply changes the rules to suit himself. There is also a terrific streak of black humour that runs throughout the book, which somewhat lifts the tone.
This does show a little as a first novel. The writing is maybe not as fluent as the subsequent works and sometimes the story wanders a little before getting back on track but, just like Jorg, it does what it sets out to do.
If you like your fantasy full of happy elves and heroes prepared to risk all for a noble cause this probably isn't the book for you. If you want to read about someone who will stop at nothing when he is pushed to the limit then this may well be what you are looking for.
Rating: Plenty of graphic violence and sexual references throughout