Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (9958 KP) rated Doctor Who - The Early Adventures: 3.4 the Sontarans in Books
Jun 14, 2018
Peter purves (1 more)
Dan starkley
A different take on the sonyarns during the early years of doctor who with peter purves playing both the doctor anfmd steven taylor listerning to his doctor voice u would think it was william hartnell plus dan starkley playing all the sontarn voices thumbs up
Blazing Minds (92 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2021 (Updated Nov 2, 2021)
The film stars Travis Fimmel (Raised by Wolves), Rachael Taylor (Jessica Jones), William Fichtner (Armageddon) and Academy Award winner, Forest Whitaker (Last King of Scotland) and is directed by Mark Steven Johnson (Daredevil, Ghost Rider).
Based on the true story of the Youngstown mob, President Richard Nixon, the FBI, and the biggest bank heist in US history! In 1972, a gang of like-minded thieves plan a heist to steal $30 million in illegal campaign contributions from the President’s secret fund.
When it comes to a heist movie Finding Steve McQueen is undoubtedly one that is fun to watch, the true comedy element comes from Travis Fimmel’s Harry Barber character who was obsessed with McQueen hence his look and name change, the film takes on the journey of the heist as series of flashbacks as Harry tells Molly (Rachel Taylor) “the truth”, this is how we get introduced to Enzo Rotella (William Fichtner) the boss of the heist, I have to say that when it comes to Fitchner he always pulls off a great performance and he plays the character great as he tries to hold the mismatch of a team together.
Based on the true story of the Youngstown mob, President Richard Nixon, the FBI, and the biggest bank heist in US history! In 1972, a gang of like-minded thieves plan a heist to steal $30 million in illegal campaign contributions from the President’s secret fund.
When it comes to a heist movie Finding Steve McQueen is undoubtedly one that is fun to watch, the true comedy element comes from Travis Fimmel’s Harry Barber character who was obsessed with McQueen hence his look and name change, the film takes on the journey of the heist as series of flashbacks as Harry tells Molly (Rachel Taylor) “the truth”, this is how we get introduced to Enzo Rotella (William Fichtner) the boss of the heist, I have to say that when it comes to Fitchner he always pulls off a great performance and he plays the character great as he tries to hold the mismatch of a team together.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Based on New England folklore, Robert Eggers brings us his debut film The With.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated A Cast of Killers in Books
Feb 15, 2019
A CAST OF KILLERS is a compelling look back into the 1922 unsolved murder of William Desmond Taylor. The author tells the story through the eyes of director King Vidor, using his actual research of the murder during the years sixty-six and sixty-seven.
Once I picked this up, I could not put it back down, or rather, I didn't want to put it down for a second. Sydney D. Kirkpatrick knows how to grab ahold of a reader and keep them locked into the book until the very end. To make sure nothing spoiled the book for me, I didn't look anything up online (as I'm apt to do) until after I had read the last sentence. This proved to be for the best. Unfortunately, this is not the definitive answer to an unsolved crime, but just Vidor's (and I assume the author's) theory in a case that will likely never be truly solved. Also, the newsletter called <a href="http://www.taylorology.com"; target="_blank">Taylorology</a>, which specializes in the murder, found 175 errors and contradictions in the 1986 edition of the book (the one I read). According to their website, most of those errors were corrected in the Twentieth Anniversary Edition.
Still, I found the book to be absolutely riveting and was a good starting place to learn the basics of a crime I had never heard of before. A CAST OF KILLERS is written like a novel, therefore it's a fast read and very entertaining. I take the theory used in it with a grain of salt, but all-in-all, it was a worthwhile read.
Once I picked this up, I could not put it back down, or rather, I didn't want to put it down for a second. Sydney D. Kirkpatrick knows how to grab ahold of a reader and keep them locked into the book until the very end. To make sure nothing spoiled the book for me, I didn't look anything up online (as I'm apt to do) until after I had read the last sentence. This proved to be for the best. Unfortunately, this is not the definitive answer to an unsolved crime, but just Vidor's (and I assume the author's) theory in a case that will likely never be truly solved. Also, the newsletter called <a href="http://www.taylorology.com"; target="_blank">Taylorology</a>, which specializes in the murder, found 175 errors and contradictions in the 1986 edition of the book (the one I read). According to their website, most of those errors were corrected in the Twentieth Anniversary Edition.
Still, I found the book to be absolutely riveting and was a good starting place to learn the basics of a crime I had never heard of before. A CAST OF KILLERS is written like a novel, therefore it's a fast read and very entertaining. I take the theory used in it with a grain of salt, but all-in-all, it was a worthwhile read.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Intense and excessive
Before watching this I had become a fan of both House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, so I did appreciate Rob Zombie as a filmmaker. But it still seemed like a strange idea to have him direct the remake of Halloween.
This remake is 2 hours long, it's mostly stretched to that length due to the scenes involving 10-year-old Michael.
Daeg Faerch plays the young Mikey, and does well, he's creepy and disturbing. Rob's wife Sheri Moon Zombie of course has a role, here as Mikey's mom, she's fine here as the role fits her well. The problem is everyone else, William Forsythe plays Mike's stepdad who happens to be a disgusting excuse for a human being, as is the bully played by Daryl Sabara. The movie then shifts to events at the asylum. Malcolm Mcdowell plays Dr. Sam Loomis. Mcdowell is a good actor, and he gives a pretty good performance here. But he still pales in comparison to the great Donald Pleasence. The movie than movies to 15-years later.
Scout Taylor Compton plays Laurie Strode, she does good, but I was disappointed that she was introduced making a sex joke. Rob couldn't even let the nerdy final girl be sweet and innocent. Needless to say, others are worse.
The movie has LOTS of profanity which honestly drags down any attempts at actually making characters likable. The sex and nudity have also been ramped up.
The violence is definitely brutal, but that's Zombie's style, I felt that Michael was quite terrifying here. Tyler Mane plays Michael, and his 7-foot tall stature is so intimidating.
Overall, Rob Zombie does a good job at developing the story of Michael Myers, and at making some really intense and brutal death scenes. But he does so at the expense of having likable characters and good dialog. I still like it, but I can understand why others wouldn't.
This remake is 2 hours long, it's mostly stretched to that length due to the scenes involving 10-year-old Michael.
Daeg Faerch plays the young Mikey, and does well, he's creepy and disturbing. Rob's wife Sheri Moon Zombie of course has a role, here as Mikey's mom, she's fine here as the role fits her well. The problem is everyone else, William Forsythe plays Mike's stepdad who happens to be a disgusting excuse for a human being, as is the bully played by Daryl Sabara. The movie then shifts to events at the asylum. Malcolm Mcdowell plays Dr. Sam Loomis. Mcdowell is a good actor, and he gives a pretty good performance here. But he still pales in comparison to the great Donald Pleasence. The movie than movies to 15-years later.
Scout Taylor Compton plays Laurie Strode, she does good, but I was disappointed that she was introduced making a sex joke. Rob couldn't even let the nerdy final girl be sweet and innocent. Needless to say, others are worse.
The movie has LOTS of profanity which honestly drags down any attempts at actually making characters likable. The sex and nudity have also been ramped up.
The violence is definitely brutal, but that's Zombie's style, I felt that Michael was quite terrifying here. Tyler Mane plays Michael, and his 7-foot tall stature is so intimidating.
Overall, Rob Zombie does a good job at developing the story of Michael Myers, and at making some really intense and brutal death scenes. But he does so at the expense of having likable characters and good dialog. I still like it, but I can understand why others wouldn't.
Darren (64 KP) rated Any Which Way You Can (1980) in Movies
Nov 1, 2019
Right Turn Clyde
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was the first film i ever rented as a kid from the video shop. I was 5 at the time and the cover just drew me to it. My mum bless her let me have this and The Snowman. That was way back in 1985 and i have never lost any love for it.
Clint stars as Philo Bedo a bare knuckle brawler who has decided after his last fight (Which he easily wins) Enough is enough and he no longer wants to fight as, He is getting to enjoy the pain a little too much. When he is offered $25,000 by Patrick Scarfe ( Michael Cavanaugh) to fight Jack Wilson played by B movie great William Smith, Philo finds the offer to tempting to resist and accepts. Meanwhile, Lynn Halsey Taylor (Sondra Locke) returns to town and plays at the local bar in an attempt to reconcile with Philo, who she betrayed in the first film. Add to this, The Black Widows, the notorious and bumbling local biker gang, plan revenge on Philo for previous misdeeds from the first film.
When circumstances lead Philo to reconcile with Lynn, She and Philo's half brother Orville (Geoffrey Lewis) find out that Jack has killed a guy in his previous fight leading no one wanting to fight him. After much pressure, Philo decides not to fight and attempts to give the money back but Scarfe and his partner James Beekman ( Harry Guardino) won't take no for an answer and have Lynn kidnapped so that Philo has no choice but to fight.
Wilson finds out about this and helps Philo get Lynn back with both of them taking down a Beekmans mob guys.. When the fight is called off again because of the under handed tactics of Scarfe and Beekman, Pride between Philo and Wilson makes them wonder who would of won the fight?
Knowing it can't end how it is, Bedo and Wilson have a wild fight through the streets of Jackson to find out, Just who is the best between them.
Clint stars as Philo Bedo a bare knuckle brawler who has decided after his last fight (Which he easily wins) Enough is enough and he no longer wants to fight as, He is getting to enjoy the pain a little too much. When he is offered $25,000 by Patrick Scarfe ( Michael Cavanaugh) to fight Jack Wilson played by B movie great William Smith, Philo finds the offer to tempting to resist and accepts. Meanwhile, Lynn Halsey Taylor (Sondra Locke) returns to town and plays at the local bar in an attempt to reconcile with Philo, who she betrayed in the first film. Add to this, The Black Widows, the notorious and bumbling local biker gang, plan revenge on Philo for previous misdeeds from the first film.
When circumstances lead Philo to reconcile with Lynn, She and Philo's half brother Orville (Geoffrey Lewis) find out that Jack has killed a guy in his previous fight leading no one wanting to fight him. After much pressure, Philo decides not to fight and attempts to give the money back but Scarfe and his partner James Beekman ( Harry Guardino) won't take no for an answer and have Lynn kidnapped so that Philo has no choice but to fight.
Wilson finds out about this and helps Philo get Lynn back with both of them taking down a Beekmans mob guys.. When the fight is called off again because of the under handed tactics of Scarfe and Beekman, Pride between Philo and Wilson makes them wonder who would of won the fight?
Knowing it can't end how it is, Bedo and Wilson have a wild fight through the streets of Jackson to find out, Just who is the best between them.
Sean Freese (4 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Jun 25, 2020
THE VVITCH
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
The full title is, The Witch: A New England Folktale. Like Grimm’s fairytales, American folklore has taken revisions over the centuries to become a palatable collection of juvenile life lessons. Anyone who has read the original versions of these stories knows how brutal, horrifying, and far removed they are from our current values. As much as I would not condone reading original classic witch tales to a small child, they do contain much deeper implications and ideas than the simple “Don’t tell lies” that are gleaned from modern revisions. What’s fascinating about The Witch is how familiar the setting and story is, without a single cliché or moment of prediction to speak of. The evil that was feared in 17th Century Puritan America has been so eclipsed by the human horrors of The Salem Witch Trials, that we have forgotten what it was to fear a witch.
We know these characters only by their Christian names. William removes his family from their Colonial settlement due to an incompatibility of faith. The colony of Puritans isn’t Christian enough. With his wife, Katherine, William takes his 4 children into the wilds of the Northeast. Airs of The Crucible envelope the setting. Common pronouns are replaced with “thines” and “thous”. Dialogue is delivered as if quoted from Shakespeare or the Bible itself. In the past, this oral dynamic has always sounded ardently rehearsed. Somehow, it’s natural here. Considering William’s rigorous faith, you might expect him to be an overbearingly shrewd father. He is in fact a loving and good man of his time; often a pushover. Katherine is the more fearsome parent, with a shrill voice and gaunt pointed face. While they do live in hardship, this is a good family. Once Fall deadens the colors and greys the skies, things begin to take a disturbing turn.
Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents without an exaggeration of the material. Remarkable still are the actors portraying their children. Harvey Scrimshaw plays William’s 10-year-old son, Caleb, as natural as can be imagined. The dramatic beats of a horror movie come with taxing climactic moments and Scrimshaw acts beyond his years. Anya Taylor-Joy plays the eldest daughter Thomasin; a doe-eyed blonde beauty who plays the most relatable character of the flock. The dynamic between Caleb and Thompsin has notes of innocent sexual tension. Their secluded life leaves a great deal of new feelings that can’t be addressed due to their customs. These feelings lead to foreign temptations that are preyed upon by the timeless evil beyond the trees.
The greatest achievement of this film is how faithful it is to its setting and story, while keeping enough behind the veil to become engrossing. The tale feels as old as any, drawing from universal fears and motivations. How it draws you in, keeping you tied to the victims and their perspective while keeping the evil at arm’s length, shows a discipline of craft that greatly compliments the material. Much like vampires, witches have been trivialized and diluted by film into something superficially attractive and entertainingly evil. As with Noseferatu, seeing a witch living a damnable existence of ugliness is much more appropriate. If they’re ever beautiful, they won’t be for long.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html