Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Da 5 Bloods (2020) in Movies
Jun 19, 2020
Delroy Lindo shines in a mostly good film
Over the years, I have become a fan of Spike Lee. I think he has a singular vision as a filmmaker with his films putting a spotlight on the black experience and the prejudices and injustices that prevail.
DA 5 BLOODS - Lee's Vietnam War movie - is no exception.
Set in present(ish) day and in the memories of the main characters from their time "in country", DA 5 BLOODS tells the tale of 4 Vietnam Veterans who return to find the body of their squadron leader - and the gold that they buried under his body.
Part Vietnam war flick, part gold heist (and the cost of this theft on the hearts and minds of the participants) and part reflection on the treatment of the black soldiers, Lee reaches high to combine 3 separate - and complex - films into one (any one of which could have been a film of their own) and it is here that this films succeeds - and fails. For this film is at moments riveting, at moments unflinching and hard to watch, at moments confusing and at moments...surprisingly... dull. Spike had a lot of movie to tell and he took 2 and a 1/2 hours to tell it. He would have been better suited to cut some of this down to a more palatable 2-ish hour length. The film bogs down on itself at times.
But when it crackles - it crackles. Especially when the 4 veteran soldiers interact with each other. Led by the great Delroy Lindo (TV's THE GOOD FIGHT). I hope that this film gets a theatrical release sometime (to make it eligible for the Oscars) for Lindo's portrayal of MAGA Hat wearing, PTSD suffering Paul is powerful and captivating. I was riveted by his performance and I was willing to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Also standing out is Clarke Peters as Otis - the heart and soul of this group and Norm Lewis, the pigeon-toed Eddie who has a secret that he is hiding. Both of these characters shine at moments - but are not in the spotlight nearly often enough. The same can be said for Isaih Whitlock Jr as Melvin, a character that is undeserved until the end and by then I felt myself wanting more of him. (Side Note: Lee named these characters after members of THE TEMPTATIONS).
Lee makes an interesting choice in the flashback scenes of the war. Instead of casting younger actors or spending the $$ on "de-aging" the actors (Lee would say that the de-aging was "cost prohibitive"), Lee chooses to have these old guys just play their younger versions of themselves just as they are now, claiming that these are not flashbacks, but "memories" of these soldiers - and I gotta admit that this tactic works very, very well - especially when these 4 older gentlemen are in the Vietnam War scenes with their Platoon Leader played, charismatically, by the much younger Chadwick Boseman. His character is killed in action and since these scenes are memories, it works well that he is younger (he never got a chance to grow old) while all the others are older. Boseman has a an attraction to him that helps the audience buy into the fact that all these years later these 4 men still hold him front and center in their memories. Unfortunately, the combat scenes looks to me like they were done on a shoe-string budget, so Lee has to use "tricks" to pull these scenes off and these tricks bring these scenes down a peg.
As I've stated, this film is really 3 films in one and the effects of the gold on the men is the most interesting part of this film for me, it touches on the desires of the human soul and brings some of the strongest acting and emotions.
This being a Spike Lee joint, this film is peppered with scenes from the black experience - from Martin Luther KIng to Malcom X to "Hanoi Hannah" telling the black troops that their country is abandoning them. These are important events in the lives and psyche of these men (and African Americans) and Mr. Lee is uniquely positioned to bring the attention of the public to these events, and he does it well.
DA 5 BLOODS in now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DA 5 BLOODS - Lee's Vietnam War movie - is no exception.
Set in present(ish) day and in the memories of the main characters from their time "in country", DA 5 BLOODS tells the tale of 4 Vietnam Veterans who return to find the body of their squadron leader - and the gold that they buried under his body.
Part Vietnam war flick, part gold heist (and the cost of this theft on the hearts and minds of the participants) and part reflection on the treatment of the black soldiers, Lee reaches high to combine 3 separate - and complex - films into one (any one of which could have been a film of their own) and it is here that this films succeeds - and fails. For this film is at moments riveting, at moments unflinching and hard to watch, at moments confusing and at moments...surprisingly... dull. Spike had a lot of movie to tell and he took 2 and a 1/2 hours to tell it. He would have been better suited to cut some of this down to a more palatable 2-ish hour length. The film bogs down on itself at times.
But when it crackles - it crackles. Especially when the 4 veteran soldiers interact with each other. Led by the great Delroy Lindo (TV's THE GOOD FIGHT). I hope that this film gets a theatrical release sometime (to make it eligible for the Oscars) for Lindo's portrayal of MAGA Hat wearing, PTSD suffering Paul is powerful and captivating. I was riveted by his performance and I was willing to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Also standing out is Clarke Peters as Otis - the heart and soul of this group and Norm Lewis, the pigeon-toed Eddie who has a secret that he is hiding. Both of these characters shine at moments - but are not in the spotlight nearly often enough. The same can be said for Isaih Whitlock Jr as Melvin, a character that is undeserved until the end and by then I felt myself wanting more of him. (Side Note: Lee named these characters after members of THE TEMPTATIONS).
Lee makes an interesting choice in the flashback scenes of the war. Instead of casting younger actors or spending the $$ on "de-aging" the actors (Lee would say that the de-aging was "cost prohibitive"), Lee chooses to have these old guys just play their younger versions of themselves just as they are now, claiming that these are not flashbacks, but "memories" of these soldiers - and I gotta admit that this tactic works very, very well - especially when these 4 older gentlemen are in the Vietnam War scenes with their Platoon Leader played, charismatically, by the much younger Chadwick Boseman. His character is killed in action and since these scenes are memories, it works well that he is younger (he never got a chance to grow old) while all the others are older. Boseman has a an attraction to him that helps the audience buy into the fact that all these years later these 4 men still hold him front and center in their memories. Unfortunately, the combat scenes looks to me like they were done on a shoe-string budget, so Lee has to use "tricks" to pull these scenes off and these tricks bring these scenes down a peg.
As I've stated, this film is really 3 films in one and the effects of the gold on the men is the most interesting part of this film for me, it touches on the desires of the human soul and brings some of the strongest acting and emotions.
This being a Spike Lee joint, this film is peppered with scenes from the black experience - from Martin Luther KIng to Malcom X to "Hanoi Hannah" telling the black troops that their country is abandoning them. These are important events in the lives and psyche of these men (and African Americans) and Mr. Lee is uniquely positioned to bring the attention of the public to these events, and he does it well.
DA 5 BLOODS in now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Hugh Jackman returns for his final performance of his iconic Wolverine character in “Logan” and if this is his last outing, he has picked the best of the series for his swan song.
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
JT (287 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the opening slow motion bullet to the face and exit wound that leaves a spray of deep red across the screen, it’s clear to see that this Dredd reboot is all about eradicating the memory of Stallone. It also does its best to stay true to the graphic novels in which this Judge Dredd leaves his helmet on for the entirety.
Karl Urban steps into the boots for this outing and complete with grizzled voice that echoes of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry he goes up against female villain Ma-Ma (Headey) who is as nasty as she is ruthless.
Mega City one, set on the East Coast and running from Boston to Washington DC is the Judges stomping ground and its being overrun by a new drug called SLO-MO in which users experience reality at a fraction of the speed. When a routine homicide leads Dredd and rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Thirlby) to The Peach Trees, a 200-storey slum tower block (wait, another tower block?), they must fight their way through the scum to get to the top and bring down the prostitute turned drug lord.
The film is certainly grittier and bloodier than its almost comic predecessor, and director Travis does not shy away from this.
An early encounter in which Dredd and Anderson infiltrate a drug house is slowed right down, maybe in some way to mirror the feeling the SLO-MO drug has on its users. Bullets and blood fly as the casualties and body count rise significantly, Dredd quips the occasional one liner with deadpan expression “negotiation’s over. Sentence is death.”
Those that saw The Raid would have been mesmerized by the action which was none stop from start to finish, sadly Dredd doesn’t live up to those high expectations but does its best to stay with mainstream carnage, of which there is plenty to satisfy.
It’s all about the facial expression
Thirlby’s psychic abilities prove useful but almost disappointing that she can second guess her opponents, a mutant, she’d probably fit in well with the X-Men. She’s the sense of reason to Dredd’s brute force, although most of the time he’s right in what he does, after all he is the law. The film is stripped back, humour is used when needed, and the action set pieces are exceptional. Urban a long time supporting actor now gets a chance to be front and centre in a franchise that can really go places.
Karl Urban steps into the boots for this outing and complete with grizzled voice that echoes of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry he goes up against female villain Ma-Ma (Headey) who is as nasty as she is ruthless.
Mega City one, set on the East Coast and running from Boston to Washington DC is the Judges stomping ground and its being overrun by a new drug called SLO-MO in which users experience reality at a fraction of the speed. When a routine homicide leads Dredd and rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Thirlby) to The Peach Trees, a 200-storey slum tower block (wait, another tower block?), they must fight their way through the scum to get to the top and bring down the prostitute turned drug lord.
The film is certainly grittier and bloodier than its almost comic predecessor, and director Travis does not shy away from this.
An early encounter in which Dredd and Anderson infiltrate a drug house is slowed right down, maybe in some way to mirror the feeling the SLO-MO drug has on its users. Bullets and blood fly as the casualties and body count rise significantly, Dredd quips the occasional one liner with deadpan expression “negotiation’s over. Sentence is death.”
Those that saw The Raid would have been mesmerized by the action which was none stop from start to finish, sadly Dredd doesn’t live up to those high expectations but does its best to stay with mainstream carnage, of which there is plenty to satisfy.
It’s all about the facial expression
Thirlby’s psychic abilities prove useful but almost disappointing that she can second guess her opponents, a mutant, she’d probably fit in well with the X-Men. She’s the sense of reason to Dredd’s brute force, although most of the time he’s right in what he does, after all he is the law. The film is stripped back, humour is used when needed, and the action set pieces are exceptional. Urban a long time supporting actor now gets a chance to be front and centre in a franchise that can really go places.
Adam Silvera recommended The Young Elites in Books (curated)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Aug 12, 2020 (Updated Aug 12, 2020)
Packs a Surprising Impact
Based on the bestselling video game, super cool Sonic (Ben Schwartz) has to outsmart the evil Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey) who wants him captured. Sonic the Hedgehog was pulled originally to revamp the look of the character. That fact alone had me worried about the viability of the movie. After watching, I have to be honest: I didn’t hate it. Dare I say, I actually kinda liked it.
Acting: 10
Sure Ben Schwartz was pretty solid as Sonic, but this movie would be nothing without the hilarious performance of Jim Carrey. Carrey has always been hit or miss for me, but he hits a homerun in Sonic. His timing is perfect as he is constantly doing things to keep you laughing. The “Left Yourself Open” scene is a constant rewinder in my household. He gives the movie a much needed shine.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Despite the exorbitant amount of time spent on fixing Sonic’s character there is still a bit to be desired in the visuals department. Some of the slow-mo scenes feel stolen from the Quicksilver scenes in the X-Men Franchise. Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few cool moments, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve seen some of it before.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 5
What Pixar manages to do extremely well in moments is make you feel like you’re not watching a movie for kids. For me, that was the primary reason I couldn’t allow myself to fully get into Sonic the Hedgehog. It oozes with cheesiness in spots which takes away from some of the overall appeal. It would be one thing if it embraced the ridiculousness of these moments, but the movie actually expects you take some of these moments seriously.
Memorability: 7
On a positive note, there are quite a few hilarious moments and some of the action scenes are really cool to watch unfold. it definitely leaves an impact even if it’s not a lasting one. I’ve seen worse kids movies and I’ve for sure seen worse video game adaptations.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
Sonic the Hedgehog is a solid movie to watch when you’re with your kids and you’ve expended your options. It’s not going to win any awards, but it packs heart. Sometimes that’s enough to carry a movie. In the case of Sonic, at the very least it makes it a fun ride.
Acting: 10
Sure Ben Schwartz was pretty solid as Sonic, but this movie would be nothing without the hilarious performance of Jim Carrey. Carrey has always been hit or miss for me, but he hits a homerun in Sonic. His timing is perfect as he is constantly doing things to keep you laughing. The “Left Yourself Open” scene is a constant rewinder in my household. He gives the movie a much needed shine.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Despite the exorbitant amount of time spent on fixing Sonic’s character there is still a bit to be desired in the visuals department. Some of the slow-mo scenes feel stolen from the Quicksilver scenes in the X-Men Franchise. Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few cool moments, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve seen some of it before.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 5
What Pixar manages to do extremely well in moments is make you feel like you’re not watching a movie for kids. For me, that was the primary reason I couldn’t allow myself to fully get into Sonic the Hedgehog. It oozes with cheesiness in spots which takes away from some of the overall appeal. It would be one thing if it embraced the ridiculousness of these moments, but the movie actually expects you take some of these moments seriously.
Memorability: 7
On a positive note, there are quite a few hilarious moments and some of the action scenes are really cool to watch unfold. it definitely leaves an impact even if it’s not a lasting one. I’ve seen worse kids movies and I’ve for sure seen worse video game adaptations.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
Sonic the Hedgehog is a solid movie to watch when you’re with your kids and you’ve expended your options. It’s not going to win any awards, but it packs heart. Sometimes that’s enough to carry a movie. In the case of Sonic, at the very least it makes it a fun ride.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ali (2001) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Ali starts on the brink of Cassius Clay (Smith) first title match in 1964, a match he wins to become heavyweight champion of the world, with his place on top of the world ready, Cassius joins forces with Malcolm X (Peebles) becoming a Muslim in the process, changing his name to Muhammad Ali.
With the Vietnam war drafting men from America, Muhammad is drafted, but he refuses to go and fight which leads him to be stripped of the title and banned from fighting in certain states, Ali uses his to create one of the biggest fights in history, The Rumble in the Jungle.
Thoughts on Ali
Characters – Muhammad Ali is one if not the most famous boxers in the world, in the history of the sport, he help shape the sport to be what we know now, with his charisma and loud behaviour against his opponents, we follow just ten years of his life, from his first title win, through his religious change, the battle against the government about fighting in the Vietnam war, to being part of one of the biggest fights in boxing history. When we focus on the rest of the real-life people we get to see the loyal people in his life, reporter Howard Cosell that seemed to have a wonderful relationship which included banter between the two and the promoters that make the fight possible.
Performances – Will Smith in the role of Ali is brilliant, this is easily his best performance of his career showing the world that he can have his wise cracking side mixed with the serious side. We have an unrecognizable Jon Voight who is shows us all that how easily he can morph into any role. The rest of the supporting cast are good without being fantastic or taking away anything from Smith in the leading role.
Story – The story here takes us into Muhammed Ali’s life for ten years, we get to see from the night he first won the title till the famous Rumble in the Jungle match. We do see the obstacles he must overcome to remain the man he was which in itself is an incredible story during late 60s America. My issues with the story come from not seeing everything that Ali went through in this career, mostly the rise to the top, which could have been an even more interesting story. for the story to only cover 10- years is interesting because we could have seen so much more of the legal battle against the government, the religious battles he faced because of his stance on war and action with the women. The truth is, Ali lived an amazing life and there are so many story we could learn about him from his career any film just can’t cover them all.
Biopic/Sports – Ten years of one of the great boxers in the history of the sport, one of the men that changed the sport almost doesn’t give it enough justice. The sports side of the film comes from the boxing scenes which are incredibly real through the film we do get a couple and they do go on a long time.
Settings – The film here takes us to the important locations in Ali’s life, the ring of course is the most important one while we get scenes away from the ring to as we look at his church and his personal life.
Scene of the Movie – Rumble in the Jungle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I would have like to see more of his life and career
Final Thoughts – This is one of those biopics which is great to watch and has wonderful scenes, only for it to be missing that big it factor about it. The fights do feel real which is key and the performances are flawless, we could only have learnt more.
Overall: Biopic to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/01/abc-film-challenge-biopic-a-ali-2001/
With the Vietnam war drafting men from America, Muhammad is drafted, but he refuses to go and fight which leads him to be stripped of the title and banned from fighting in certain states, Ali uses his to create one of the biggest fights in history, The Rumble in the Jungle.
Thoughts on Ali
Characters – Muhammad Ali is one if not the most famous boxers in the world, in the history of the sport, he help shape the sport to be what we know now, with his charisma and loud behaviour against his opponents, we follow just ten years of his life, from his first title win, through his religious change, the battle against the government about fighting in the Vietnam war, to being part of one of the biggest fights in boxing history. When we focus on the rest of the real-life people we get to see the loyal people in his life, reporter Howard Cosell that seemed to have a wonderful relationship which included banter between the two and the promoters that make the fight possible.
Performances – Will Smith in the role of Ali is brilliant, this is easily his best performance of his career showing the world that he can have his wise cracking side mixed with the serious side. We have an unrecognizable Jon Voight who is shows us all that how easily he can morph into any role. The rest of the supporting cast are good without being fantastic or taking away anything from Smith in the leading role.
Story – The story here takes us into Muhammed Ali’s life for ten years, we get to see from the night he first won the title till the famous Rumble in the Jungle match. We do see the obstacles he must overcome to remain the man he was which in itself is an incredible story during late 60s America. My issues with the story come from not seeing everything that Ali went through in this career, mostly the rise to the top, which could have been an even more interesting story. for the story to only cover 10- years is interesting because we could have seen so much more of the legal battle against the government, the religious battles he faced because of his stance on war and action with the women. The truth is, Ali lived an amazing life and there are so many story we could learn about him from his career any film just can’t cover them all.
Biopic/Sports – Ten years of one of the great boxers in the history of the sport, one of the men that changed the sport almost doesn’t give it enough justice. The sports side of the film comes from the boxing scenes which are incredibly real through the film we do get a couple and they do go on a long time.
Settings – The film here takes us to the important locations in Ali’s life, the ring of course is the most important one while we get scenes away from the ring to as we look at his church and his personal life.
Scene of the Movie – Rumble in the Jungle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I would have like to see more of his life and career
Final Thoughts – This is one of those biopics which is great to watch and has wonderful scenes, only for it to be missing that big it factor about it. The fights do feel real which is key and the performances are flawless, we could only have learnt more.
Overall: Biopic to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/01/abc-film-challenge-biopic-a-ali-2001/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.