Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr) is the perfect student. Captain of the high school track team, a passionate member of the school debating society, a great writer and a polite, grown-up young man that just seems too good to be true. Luce was adopted at the age of 9 from war-torn Eritrea by white couple Amy (Naomi Watts) and Peter (Tim Roth, sporting a pretty dodgy American accent). Following years of therapy and the devoted efforts of Amy and Peter, he seems to have successfully put his horrific and traumatic childhood behind him, embracing his future in America.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
Leah Lopez (7 KP) rated Gone Girl in Books
Nov 6, 2019
This book had many key elements to keep the reader constantly entertained.
1) The characters had their own voice; their own emotions and thoughts which was clearly recognised through per chapter dedicated to them. My mind alternated between which character I liked/hated understood/or not worth understanding. At the beginning of the book I was on Nick's side. It seemed Amy was some "nagging wife" and it would be easy to become annoyed by all her "stupid traditions" but then, I read Amy's side and then I was like..."Okay, now I understand why the traditions are important and how much she loves Nick..." When he come home to find his wife had disappeared and his house looked "ransacked" I began questioning the possible theories to her disappearance. I thought:
S.P.O.I.L.E.R. A.L.E.R.T
She hasn't been taken. She isn't dead. It is all but a set up: to get Nick to realise how much he loves Amy and he be lost without her. I thought she has just gone away for a few days.
My first shock? Nick cheating on Amy
but then; had it been a shock/ plot twist shock, or did I just not want to believe that of him?
It was easy from this point to hate Nick. He had been having an affair, he was violent, he was a liar.
I began siding with Amy.
Still...it became clear through Nick's request on finding out the truth that she too was a liar; but a more-well trained liar and not spontaneous? She was evil; she played people to her needs. She used them to better herself.
Towards the end of the book; when she came back home and reported her "kidnap and rape" from Desi it was here I thought this is going to end pretty shit now...but once again I was surprised. I began to hate Amy and like Nick. Still Nick demonstrated his violence towards Amy by strangling her and detailing his enjoyment of her pulsating struggle for breath. When Amy came back and explained the truth, and furthermore...I wanted her to be arrested; to find that tiny bit of evidence she didn't think of...something none of us would have thought of but maybe read and thought nothing of it at the time. Still, she still had things up her sleeve and still ten steps in front of Nick-the semen and her way of permanently keeping him in her life. I knew it had to end, but I think it would have been more entertaining on something she left out, rather than her once again winning.
Overall:
a great suspense-filled book that makes you yo-yo between liking/hating the characters!
Will be looking for more books written by her!
1) The characters had their own voice; their own emotions and thoughts which was clearly recognised through per chapter dedicated to them. My mind alternated between which character I liked/hated understood/or not worth understanding. At the beginning of the book I was on Nick's side. It seemed Amy was some "nagging wife" and it would be easy to become annoyed by all her "stupid traditions" but then, I read Amy's side and then I was like..."Okay, now I understand why the traditions are important and how much she loves Nick..." When he come home to find his wife had disappeared and his house looked "ransacked" I began questioning the possible theories to her disappearance. I thought:
S.P.O.I.L.E.R. A.L.E.R.T
She hasn't been taken. She isn't dead. It is all but a set up: to get Nick to realise how much he loves Amy and he be lost without her. I thought she has just gone away for a few days.
My first shock? Nick cheating on Amy
but then; had it been a shock/ plot twist shock, or did I just not want to believe that of him?
It was easy from this point to hate Nick. He had been having an affair, he was violent, he was a liar.
I began siding with Amy.
Still...it became clear through Nick's request on finding out the truth that she too was a liar; but a more-well trained liar and not spontaneous? She was evil; she played people to her needs. She used them to better herself.
Towards the end of the book; when she came back home and reported her "kidnap and rape" from Desi it was here I thought this is going to end pretty shit now...but once again I was surprised. I began to hate Amy and like Nick. Still Nick demonstrated his violence towards Amy by strangling her and detailing his enjoyment of her pulsating struggle for breath. When Amy came back and explained the truth, and furthermore...I wanted her to be arrested; to find that tiny bit of evidence she didn't think of...something none of us would have thought of but maybe read and thought nothing of it at the time. Still, she still had things up her sleeve and still ten steps in front of Nick-the semen and her way of permanently keeping him in her life. I knew it had to end, but I think it would have been more entertaining on something she left out, rather than her once again winning.
Overall:
a great suspense-filled book that makes you yo-yo between liking/hating the characters!
Will be looking for more books written by her!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
It's says a lot about this third entry into the Bad Boys franchise, when there's been a 17 year gap between movies, and it still manages to be this good!
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Apr 13, 2020
One of the GOATS
At the time of this writing, Saving Private Ryan is sitting at fourteen on my all-time list. It is one of those once-in-a-lifetime movies that doesn’t come along too often. The story revolves around an army captain in WWII taking his men on a suicide mission to rescue a private before he is killed in action. Private Ryan’s three brothers have already been killed in action and the military wants to get the remaining Ryan home so his mother won’t have lost all of her children in one war.
Acting: 10
Where do I start? With Tom Hanks and his brilliant performance as Captain John Miller? Vin Diesel in probably one of his best roles as Private Caparzo. Tom Sizemore…Matt Damon…There are so many amazing performances that contributed to the greatness of this movie. You usually see it in glimpses as each character doesn’t get much in the way of their own screen time. The movie is packed with so many of those glimpse moments from these stellar actors, it’s hard to forget each of their roles.
Beginning: 10
Boasts one of the best opening twenty minutes in movie history. It’s violent, touching, and sucks you right in to the meat of the movie. There is so much intensity here, from the raucous sounds to the visceral feel of everything, that it’s hard to catch your breath afterwards.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If you want knock-your-socks-off action from beginning to end, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely the movie for you. The battles are amazing giving you a front row seat to World War II. Steven Spielberg relies on a number of different camera angles to give you the full effect. Every scene is heartstopping as you realize the stakes and understand that no one is safe in this ultimate battle to stay alive. This movie has more action in the first twenty minutes than most films do through their entirety.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
For the most part, the story is pretty linear. There is a mission. Go and complete the mission. The end. However, there are two existing twists within the movie that definitely make things more interesting and entertaining. Those small tweaks were enough to satisfy my craving for originality.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
There is a scene on the beach where the camera shoots from underwater then repeatedly rises and falls in the water showing the grit of everything happening. This is one of a number of shots that makes Saving Private Ryan one of the all-time movies to ever exist in cinema. This movie is flat out amazing.
Acting: 10
Where do I start? With Tom Hanks and his brilliant performance as Captain John Miller? Vin Diesel in probably one of his best roles as Private Caparzo. Tom Sizemore…Matt Damon…There are so many amazing performances that contributed to the greatness of this movie. You usually see it in glimpses as each character doesn’t get much in the way of their own screen time. The movie is packed with so many of those glimpse moments from these stellar actors, it’s hard to forget each of their roles.
Beginning: 10
Boasts one of the best opening twenty minutes in movie history. It’s violent, touching, and sucks you right in to the meat of the movie. There is so much intensity here, from the raucous sounds to the visceral feel of everything, that it’s hard to catch your breath afterwards.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If you want knock-your-socks-off action from beginning to end, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely the movie for you. The battles are amazing giving you a front row seat to World War II. Steven Spielberg relies on a number of different camera angles to give you the full effect. Every scene is heartstopping as you realize the stakes and understand that no one is safe in this ultimate battle to stay alive. This movie has more action in the first twenty minutes than most films do through their entirety.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
For the most part, the story is pretty linear. There is a mission. Go and complete the mission. The end. However, there are two existing twists within the movie that definitely make things more interesting and entertaining. Those small tweaks were enough to satisfy my craving for originality.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
There is a scene on the beach where the camera shoots from underwater then repeatedly rises and falls in the water showing the grit of everything happening. This is one of a number of shots that makes Saving Private Ryan one of the all-time movies to ever exist in cinema. This movie is flat out amazing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated No Escape (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure…I am not a fan of Owen Wilson. In fact, I have down right loathed him since I first saw him in Armageddon. In my opinion, he always plays an annoying, somewhat exaggerated and not very funny character. To make things worse, No Escape is a non-comedy, non-quirky, straight man Owen Wilson film. Seems like a terrible idea. Still, the trailer intrigued me because I wanted to see if Wilson had any range to be a “normal action” character for once or would he continue to live up to my low expectations of him.
Surprisingly, I enjoyed him in this performance greatly. Wilson plays a father who uproots his wife Annie (Lake Bell) and their two little girls and moves them to Southeast Asia to work on a project to bring clean drinking water to the country and provide a better life for his family. However shortly after arrival, the family finds themselves in the middle of a violent political uprising they do not understand nor have any idea why it is happening and must somehow find sanctuary and escape this foreign city where Americans are being executed on sight. The film is intense. As soon as the coup begins, we are taken on a ride of constant tension and emotion, broken up with quiet moments where Wilson uses “dad humor” to comfort his family. Wilson shines in these moments because his “lame Dad humor” is not only believable, but his demeanor throughout the film is realistic and loving. His chemistry with his cast mates is stellar as the family all deliver solid performances and you can believe they are an actual family.
As they are moving through the city they come across a familiar face in Pierce Brosnan who plays some kind of mercenary ex-agent type. Brosnan’s screen time is short but he steals every scene he is in. He also gives an explanation, though simple, of what is going on and how the family can find safety. Critics of this film may fault it for glossing over a real world issue of western colonialism and no attempt to humanize the plight of the locals, however for me at least, this film isn’t trying to tell a giant story, but rather a far simpler one which is about family. Additionally, the trailers for this film present it as more of an action film, which it is not.
In the end we are left with a frightening atmosphere where we constantly might ask ourselves what we would do in that situation. The strength of this film is the family dynamic and the strong performances that give them life. Though the film mostly ignores a real world issue, it delivers a thrilling fast paced ride from almost start to finish.
Surprisingly, I enjoyed him in this performance greatly. Wilson plays a father who uproots his wife Annie (Lake Bell) and their two little girls and moves them to Southeast Asia to work on a project to bring clean drinking water to the country and provide a better life for his family. However shortly after arrival, the family finds themselves in the middle of a violent political uprising they do not understand nor have any idea why it is happening and must somehow find sanctuary and escape this foreign city where Americans are being executed on sight. The film is intense. As soon as the coup begins, we are taken on a ride of constant tension and emotion, broken up with quiet moments where Wilson uses “dad humor” to comfort his family. Wilson shines in these moments because his “lame Dad humor” is not only believable, but his demeanor throughout the film is realistic and loving. His chemistry with his cast mates is stellar as the family all deliver solid performances and you can believe they are an actual family.
As they are moving through the city they come across a familiar face in Pierce Brosnan who plays some kind of mercenary ex-agent type. Brosnan’s screen time is short but he steals every scene he is in. He also gives an explanation, though simple, of what is going on and how the family can find safety. Critics of this film may fault it for glossing over a real world issue of western colonialism and no attempt to humanize the plight of the locals, however for me at least, this film isn’t trying to tell a giant story, but rather a far simpler one which is about family. Additionally, the trailers for this film present it as more of an action film, which it is not.
In the end we are left with a frightening atmosphere where we constantly might ask ourselves what we would do in that situation. The strength of this film is the family dynamic and the strong performances that give them life. Though the film mostly ignores a real world issue, it delivers a thrilling fast paced ride from almost start to finish.
Expanded Lovemaking: Sex, Love, and Consciousness
Podcast
Enjoy juicy and informative interviews with the acclaimed author Dr. Patti Taylor of...
Duncan MacMillan: Plays One
Book
Monster: "He's got zero empathy. You could be having a conversation and start choking to death and...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Fairly Tale In Hollywood But Lacks Finesse And Excitement
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a 2019 dramedy (drama/comedy) movie written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and producers David Heyman and Shannon Mcintosh. It was produced by Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, and Visiona Romantica and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch and Al Pacino.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
Illeana Douglas recommended Ride the Pink Horse (1947) in Movies (curated)
Erika (17789 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021 (Updated May 23, 2021)
Guy Ritchie’s newest film, Wrath of Man, is based upon a French film called le Convoyeur, or ‘Cash Truck’. It’s one of the first ‘big’ films that’s only been released in theaters here in the US.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.
The film was broken into chapters, with different timelines. The opening scene is a violent armored truck robbery, which set an interesting fast-paced tone right off the bat. For me, that pace didn’t stick.
Jason Statham’s character, Hill, or ‘H’ is introduced on his first day working at the same armored truck company a few months later. It’s obvious that Hill isn’t really his name, as he delays his response, and everything is not as it seems. He forms a bond, or something resembling a bond on the surface, with ‘Bullet’, who is his trainer and eventual partner. All the cash truck drivers had very odd nicknames, like Josh Hartnett’s character’s nickname was ‘Boy Sweat’. I don’t believe whatever inside joke it was referring to was ever explained. Of course, per usual, witty banter ensues, which was just kind of gross and crass. Apparently, all the other people in the theater, dudes, thought it was hilarious and it got some laughs. Of course, there was the obligatory ‘Mary Poppins’ comment concerning H’s English accent. I don’t understand why this keeps getting used, the only quip I have ever heard in real life by an American towards someone with an English accent is ‘Masterpiece Theater’.
The pace, as I said, slowed down, until the end of this ‘chapter’, when H stops his armored truck from being robbed by Post Malone. After he takes out all these robbers, he becomes a hero at the company. After a subsequent robbery, all H did was reveal his face, and bam, everyone scatters. Which was really kind of odd. I would have rather watched H tear through them like he did the first batch of robbers, but ok. Bullet then recites the jazzed-up title of this chapter, ‘He’s a dark {expletive] spirit’.
In the subsequent chapters, it becomes clear as to who H is, why the robbery at the beginning was featured, and who ends up being the rat.
Statham’s character in this film was the meanest and most ruthless character he’s ever played. Though, I’m pretty sure the movie could have used a lot more of his wrath. The other characters, portrayed by the likes of Hartnett, Holt McCallany, Andy Garcia, Rob Delany, Eddie Marsan, and Scott Eastwood, didn’t particularly stand out to me.
Overall, I was entertained during the film, I left feeling ambivalent. I think that it just wasn’t enough, maybe there needed to be more violence and more wrath. It almost needed to be more extreme, because in the end, it was neither here nor there.