Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Never entertaining, frequently repugnant
Director Francis Lawrence and Hollywood sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence (they are no relation, I’ve checked) aren’t a new combination when it comes to film-making.
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts by in 1991 we meet Matt Scudder (Neeson) a nonsense detective who while having his morning Irish coffee ends up going into a shootout. Flash forward to 1999 Matt is now a private investigator and when a former junkie Peter Kristo (Holbrook) invites him to meet his brother Kenny (Stevens) for a job. Kenny’s wife was kidnapped with the ransom paid and murdered; he wants Matt to bring him the names of the people responsible. Matt rejects the offer wisely because it would involving working with a drug trafficker but Kenny won’t take no for an answer.
Kenny tales the story of what happened and how gruesome the murder was, this brings Matt into the case to track down the people responsible. Using all his skills he starts the investigation by questioning the locals. The killers prove to be professionals who cover their tracks when committing their crimes. When it becomes apparent they have been doing this for years Matt finds himself investigating cold cases. Tracking down the leads he does come up with a potential name and a place he could meet them, but nothing could prepare him for the nature of the men.
A Walk Among the Tombstones starts very nicely with the broken protagonist trying to make up for something he could never actually make up for, it is hidden from us but we do see he has personal problems. The whole drug dealers being targeting by serial killers also works nicely, giving us a chance to keep guessing on whether it is actually a large scale revenge type thriller than Matt is stuck in the middle off. It goes downhill slowly because of the pace and then turning it into the simple idea that they are just two killers doing it for fun. It is sad because this had a lot of potential from the start but in the end just fizzles out. (6/10)
Actor Review
Liam Neeson: Matt Scudder a private detective who against his better judgment ends up investigating serial killers who enjoy nothing more than kidnapping and killing their victim even if they get their money. He is a former detective who has been recovering from his alcoholism which cost him his job. Liam does do a good job in the role and goes away from the new action star he has created. (7/10)
matt
Dan Stevens: Kenny Kristo drug trafficker whose wife was killed and hires Matt to find the people responsible for it, it will mean risking his connection to help expose the truth. Dan does a good job as the mobster out for revenge for a crime that is personal rather than work related. (7/10)
kenny
Support Cast: A Walk Among the Tombstones has a supporting cast that includes the two killers who are very much evil in what they do, we have other mobsters who are the victims of those killers and we also have a street wise kid trying to help Mark out. They all help the story flow along very well.
Director Review: Scott Frank – Scott does a solid job directing this to make it an interesting thriller with a very dark side to it. (6/10)
Crime: A Walk Among the Tombstones enters into the crime world without going too far over the top with its double crossing, instead focusing on one angle the whole way through. (7/10)
Mystery: A Walk Among the Tombstones does keep you guessing to what would be the motives of the characters creating a nice mystery about the story. (8/10)
Thriller: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts off pulling you in especially when you hear about the murdered wife but afterwards slight starts to fade away. (7/10)
Settings: A Walk Among the Tombstones creates a world that is similar to 1999 New York. (7/10)
Suggestion: A Walk Among the Tombstones is one to try and the fans of Neeson will be watching this, it might not keep everyone happy because it isn’t as dark as its source material. (Try It)
Best Part: The shock of what Kenny finds in the boot of that car.
Worst Part: Falls away by the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Cold in July
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $53 Million
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes
Tagline: People are afraid of all the wrong things.
Overall: A Thriller That Hits Hard Early but Tires Near the End
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/26/a-walk-among-the-tombstones-2014/
Kenny tales the story of what happened and how gruesome the murder was, this brings Matt into the case to track down the people responsible. Using all his skills he starts the investigation by questioning the locals. The killers prove to be professionals who cover their tracks when committing their crimes. When it becomes apparent they have been doing this for years Matt finds himself investigating cold cases. Tracking down the leads he does come up with a potential name and a place he could meet them, but nothing could prepare him for the nature of the men.
A Walk Among the Tombstones starts very nicely with the broken protagonist trying to make up for something he could never actually make up for, it is hidden from us but we do see he has personal problems. The whole drug dealers being targeting by serial killers also works nicely, giving us a chance to keep guessing on whether it is actually a large scale revenge type thriller than Matt is stuck in the middle off. It goes downhill slowly because of the pace and then turning it into the simple idea that they are just two killers doing it for fun. It is sad because this had a lot of potential from the start but in the end just fizzles out. (6/10)
Actor Review
Liam Neeson: Matt Scudder a private detective who against his better judgment ends up investigating serial killers who enjoy nothing more than kidnapping and killing their victim even if they get their money. He is a former detective who has been recovering from his alcoholism which cost him his job. Liam does do a good job in the role and goes away from the new action star he has created. (7/10)
matt
Dan Stevens: Kenny Kristo drug trafficker whose wife was killed and hires Matt to find the people responsible for it, it will mean risking his connection to help expose the truth. Dan does a good job as the mobster out for revenge for a crime that is personal rather than work related. (7/10)
kenny
Support Cast: A Walk Among the Tombstones has a supporting cast that includes the two killers who are very much evil in what they do, we have other mobsters who are the victims of those killers and we also have a street wise kid trying to help Mark out. They all help the story flow along very well.
Director Review: Scott Frank – Scott does a solid job directing this to make it an interesting thriller with a very dark side to it. (6/10)
Crime: A Walk Among the Tombstones enters into the crime world without going too far over the top with its double crossing, instead focusing on one angle the whole way through. (7/10)
Mystery: A Walk Among the Tombstones does keep you guessing to what would be the motives of the characters creating a nice mystery about the story. (8/10)
Thriller: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts off pulling you in especially when you hear about the murdered wife but afterwards slight starts to fade away. (7/10)
Settings: A Walk Among the Tombstones creates a world that is similar to 1999 New York. (7/10)
Suggestion: A Walk Among the Tombstones is one to try and the fans of Neeson will be watching this, it might not keep everyone happy because it isn’t as dark as its source material. (Try It)
Best Part: The shock of what Kenny finds in the boot of that car.
Worst Part: Falls away by the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Cold in July
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $53 Million
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes
Tagline: People are afraid of all the wrong things.
Overall: A Thriller That Hits Hard Early but Tires Near the End
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/26/a-walk-among-the-tombstones-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Against All Odds (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Against All Odds starts as veteran American football Terry Brogan (Bridges) gets cu from his team, wanting to take legal action it is his former friend and gangster Jake Wise (Woods) that hires him to track down a woman Jessie Wyler (Ward) daughter of Terry’s former employer.
Terry ends up doing the job with both sides fighting to pay him to finds Jessie, Terry uses this as a chance for a paid vacation even after locating Jessie who he gets to spend time with and fall in love with. Soon not everything is as it seems and Terry finds himself needing to fight for his own life too.
Thoughts on Against All Odds
Characters/Performance – Terry Brogan is a veteran American footballer, his career is about to be ended on the field due to injuries and after not saving money in his life, he finds himself with nothing. Terry finds himself needing to work for both Mrs Wyler and Jake Wise from different sides to locate Jessie but soon he finds himself in bigger trouble. Jessie is the daughter of the owner of the football team and former lover of Jake Wise, she has gone into hiding for her own reasons with Terry searching for her to hopefully return to the States. Jake is the gangster that has details on Terry which could ruin his legacy but offers him money to find Jessie for him.
Performance wise, Jeff Bridges is good as he always is through any film he steps into and shows that he was always going to be a big name, Rachel Ward is good but doesn’t reach the levels of Bridges and James Woods can always splay the creepy figure which is why we love him so.
Story – A former sports star needs money and takes a risky job for a shady figure to earn the money and not have his career exposed. This all seems like a simple enough story and one we can all follow nicely. We have twists along the way which try to put u in the wrong direction but otherwise everything is all simple enough to enjoy for an 80s style of film.
REPORT THIS AD
Action/Adventure/Crime/Romance – When we break down the genres we get plenty to go through but the reality is that because we focus on too many we don’t get a strong enough side to any of them with each part being the first part of the generic of any of them.
Settings – The two main settings are LA which is the one we can all understand as being the glitz and glamour with the crimes taking place in while the Mexico setting shows us the calm before the storm.
Final Thoughts – The 80s were a decade of films with unlikely heroes taking over the leading roles in action like films and this was no different, it can be enjoyed throughout the film.
Overall: Thriller that just says 80s all over it.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/02/07/against-all-odds-1984/
Terry ends up doing the job with both sides fighting to pay him to finds Jessie, Terry uses this as a chance for a paid vacation even after locating Jessie who he gets to spend time with and fall in love with. Soon not everything is as it seems and Terry finds himself needing to fight for his own life too.
Thoughts on Against All Odds
Characters/Performance – Terry Brogan is a veteran American footballer, his career is about to be ended on the field due to injuries and after not saving money in his life, he finds himself with nothing. Terry finds himself needing to work for both Mrs Wyler and Jake Wise from different sides to locate Jessie but soon he finds himself in bigger trouble. Jessie is the daughter of the owner of the football team and former lover of Jake Wise, she has gone into hiding for her own reasons with Terry searching for her to hopefully return to the States. Jake is the gangster that has details on Terry which could ruin his legacy but offers him money to find Jessie for him.
Performance wise, Jeff Bridges is good as he always is through any film he steps into and shows that he was always going to be a big name, Rachel Ward is good but doesn’t reach the levels of Bridges and James Woods can always splay the creepy figure which is why we love him so.
Story – A former sports star needs money and takes a risky job for a shady figure to earn the money and not have his career exposed. This all seems like a simple enough story and one we can all follow nicely. We have twists along the way which try to put u in the wrong direction but otherwise everything is all simple enough to enjoy for an 80s style of film.
REPORT THIS AD
Action/Adventure/Crime/Romance – When we break down the genres we get plenty to go through but the reality is that because we focus on too many we don’t get a strong enough side to any of them with each part being the first part of the generic of any of them.
Settings – The two main settings are LA which is the one we can all understand as being the glitz and glamour with the crimes taking place in while the Mexico setting shows us the calm before the storm.
Final Thoughts – The 80s were a decade of films with unlikely heroes taking over the leading roles in action like films and this was no different, it can be enjoyed throughout the film.
Overall: Thriller that just says 80s all over it.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/02/07/against-all-odds-1984/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Other Widow in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Dorrie is embroiled in an affair with her boss, Joe, which ends abruptly one cold and snowy night when Joe picks her up. He tells her the affair is over, that "it isn't safe," and then moments after, their car skids on the ice and crashes into a tree. Joe dies at the scene, but Dorrie's airbag deploys and she makes a split moment decision to walk away from the crash (undetected). But she's haunted by that evening and Joe's death. Further, what did Joe mean that it wasn't safe? Why didn't Joe's airbag deploy like Dorrie's? Did Dorrie really see someone near the car moments after the crash?
Meanwhile, Joe's wife Karen is left reeling from his death as well. Also wrapped up in Joe's passing is insurance investigator Maggie Devlin. A former cop, Maggie is suspicious about the circumstances of Joe's death--and the women involved in his life. But can she put together the pieces of what really happened? And are Karen and Dorrie truly in danger?
This novel was interesting and suspenseful, though it didn't fully grab me. Still, I read it in about two days, so it was certainly a fast read with a captivating plot. For me, I liked Dorrie and Karen well enough, but I wasn't deeply pulled into either of their lives. Neither character was fully drawn enough for me to fully relate to them. In fact, I really liked Maggie the best, but we learn the least about her. I could almost see Maggie getting a sequel--she was a very intriguing and likable character.
Crawford's novel is well-written, but seems to suffer a little bit from "who am I" syndrome... in some ways it's a thriller, but in other ways, it's purely psychological women's fiction. As such, the mystery seems to take a backseat to the women's lives, at times, and becomes convoluted and confusing by the end. There's a backstory with Joe's business that I almost couldn't fully tell you what happened, because it's not given complete attention, even though it's supposed to propel so much of the action. That duality was tough, because the book never really focused on either the thriller aspect, or the women, and you felt like you were left hanging on both plot points by the end.
Overall, this was a quick read, with an original plot, but seemed confusing and pulled in a few directions: 3 stars.
I received an ARC of this novel from Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available for publication on 4/26/16. You can read reviews of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Meanwhile, Joe's wife Karen is left reeling from his death as well. Also wrapped up in Joe's passing is insurance investigator Maggie Devlin. A former cop, Maggie is suspicious about the circumstances of Joe's death--and the women involved in his life. But can she put together the pieces of what really happened? And are Karen and Dorrie truly in danger?
This novel was interesting and suspenseful, though it didn't fully grab me. Still, I read it in about two days, so it was certainly a fast read with a captivating plot. For me, I liked Dorrie and Karen well enough, but I wasn't deeply pulled into either of their lives. Neither character was fully drawn enough for me to fully relate to them. In fact, I really liked Maggie the best, but we learn the least about her. I could almost see Maggie getting a sequel--she was a very intriguing and likable character.
Crawford's novel is well-written, but seems to suffer a little bit from "who am I" syndrome... in some ways it's a thriller, but in other ways, it's purely psychological women's fiction. As such, the mystery seems to take a backseat to the women's lives, at times, and becomes convoluted and confusing by the end. There's a backstory with Joe's business that I almost couldn't fully tell you what happened, because it's not given complete attention, even though it's supposed to propel so much of the action. That duality was tough, because the book never really focused on either the thriller aspect, or the women, and you felt like you were left hanging on both plot points by the end.
Overall, this was a quick read, with an original plot, but seemed confusing and pulled in a few directions: 3 stars.
I received an ARC of this novel from Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available for publication on 4/26/16. You can read reviews of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alienated (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alienated starts as we follow married couple Nate (Katt) & Paige (Burry) as they go about their everyday lives, we see the ups and downs in their communication which every couple has. When Nate believes he sees a space craft and Paige brushes off Nate’s request to watch the video leading to a fight between the two. We see how they have to rebuild their friendship and whether Paige wants to believe Nate did really see a spacecraft.
Alienated gives us a very interesting drama that bottles down to what people want to believe when a loved one believes in something. I will admit that I was expecting more sci-fi element involved as this while very entertaining follows only the conversations between the couple. This showed how to make an ultra-interesting film between the characters giving them a natural feel throughout.
Actor Review
George Katt: Nate is an artist meaning he spends most of his time at home, he is a conspiracy theorist making him believe. He has a smaller social circle compared to his wife and once he believes he sees a spacecraft the relationship with his wife is pushed to the limits as they deal with what is real. George is great in this role as we
Jen Burry: Paige is the successful business woman who comes home everyday to her husband Nate who can easily be pushed into believing in many different conspiracies. She wants to be noticed more by her husband instead of dealing with his theories on a daily basis. Jen is great in this role showing great chemistry with George.
Taylor Negron: Griffin is the neighbour of the couple, he comes off very strange but we don’t see too much of the character. Taylor is good giving us mystery about the character.
Director Review: Brian Ackley – Brian gives us one of the most interesting story driven film of the year.
Thriller: Alienated keeps us on edge as we wait to see what is the truth throughout.
Settings: Alienated keeps the setting in the home of the couple showing how this could come off as an everyday conversation but it could also be something bigger.
Suggestion: Alienated is one to try, I do think the casual fans might find this slightly hard to enjoy but once you start you just don’t want to stop. (Try It)
Best Part: Natural feeling throughout.
Worst Part: Not everything you think it will be.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 21 Minutes
Overall: Very interesting thriller that takes away the action only to give us an engrossing story.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/02/25/alienated-2015/
Alienated gives us a very interesting drama that bottles down to what people want to believe when a loved one believes in something. I will admit that I was expecting more sci-fi element involved as this while very entertaining follows only the conversations between the couple. This showed how to make an ultra-interesting film between the characters giving them a natural feel throughout.
Actor Review
George Katt: Nate is an artist meaning he spends most of his time at home, he is a conspiracy theorist making him believe. He has a smaller social circle compared to his wife and once he believes he sees a spacecraft the relationship with his wife is pushed to the limits as they deal with what is real. George is great in this role as we
Jen Burry: Paige is the successful business woman who comes home everyday to her husband Nate who can easily be pushed into believing in many different conspiracies. She wants to be noticed more by her husband instead of dealing with his theories on a daily basis. Jen is great in this role showing great chemistry with George.
Taylor Negron: Griffin is the neighbour of the couple, he comes off very strange but we don’t see too much of the character. Taylor is good giving us mystery about the character.
Director Review: Brian Ackley – Brian gives us one of the most interesting story driven film of the year.
Thriller: Alienated keeps us on edge as we wait to see what is the truth throughout.
Settings: Alienated keeps the setting in the home of the couple showing how this could come off as an everyday conversation but it could also be something bigger.
Suggestion: Alienated is one to try, I do think the casual fans might find this slightly hard to enjoy but once you start you just don’t want to stop. (Try It)
Best Part: Natural feeling throughout.
Worst Part: Not everything you think it will be.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 21 Minutes
Overall: Very interesting thriller that takes away the action only to give us an engrossing story.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/02/25/alienated-2015/
365Flicks (235 KP) rated The Ice-Cream truck (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Going into the Ice Cream Truck I have to admit I had some lofty expectations for the movie. When I read this movie was directed by the grand-daughter of one Elmore Leonard (if you have to ask, leave the room). Now yes, I know I shouldn’t let that factor into how I choose my viewing but its a good place to start.
Ice Cream Truck didn’t disappoint me, I mean sure yeah if you watch the trailer and expect to be watching some gore filled serial killer horror (Which from the trailer you could well expect that) then you may be a little disappointed. However stick with this flick because what you actually get is a well placed slow burning psychological thriller that waits till the last 10-15 minutes to ratchet up the action. Oh and there is a few pretty neat deaths. At first I felt fairly disjointed with the flick, people where dying and no one in the neighborhood seemed to give a shit or even know, but Director Megan Freels Johnston is taking her time and building towards something, all the while having Deanna Russo deliver an incredibly layered performance in a movie that is only a sharp 90 minutes.
So the movie sees Deanna Russo (Being Human, Gossip Girl) as Mary, Mary has had to relocate to some suburban neighborhood after her husband being offered a new job. She makes her way to the new house a few days before the rest of the family and meets all the local neighborhood stereotypes on offer including the Step-ford wives, the Local Hunky yard cleaner and the Ice Cream Man. She is about to find that they have moved to a suburban hell hole.
The Ice Cream Truck also stars Dana Gaier (Despicable Me 3), John Redlinger (Thirst, Banshee), Emil Johnsen (Isolerad), Hilary Barraford (Go For Sisters), Jeff Daniel Phillips (31), and Lisa Ann Walter (War of the Worlds).
Im not going to say this is the worlds best movie but its a definite recommend. Was I expecting something else? Yes. Did I like what was presented? Yes. Johnston has given us a well constructed thriller. The only place it really falls apart is that… Well the kills are pretty easy, I personally like some cat and mouse. However Emil Johnson as the Ice Cream Man is creepy as shit. Deanna Russo is great in the lead so no complaints on that front and we got a cheeky little twist that made me go… HUH.
Not the strongest recommend I have given but you should give this flick a go and like I say at only 90 minutes your in and out before you know it. Personally I think you will get a kick from this movie.
Ice Cream Truck didn’t disappoint me, I mean sure yeah if you watch the trailer and expect to be watching some gore filled serial killer horror (Which from the trailer you could well expect that) then you may be a little disappointed. However stick with this flick because what you actually get is a well placed slow burning psychological thriller that waits till the last 10-15 minutes to ratchet up the action. Oh and there is a few pretty neat deaths. At first I felt fairly disjointed with the flick, people where dying and no one in the neighborhood seemed to give a shit or even know, but Director Megan Freels Johnston is taking her time and building towards something, all the while having Deanna Russo deliver an incredibly layered performance in a movie that is only a sharp 90 minutes.
So the movie sees Deanna Russo (Being Human, Gossip Girl) as Mary, Mary has had to relocate to some suburban neighborhood after her husband being offered a new job. She makes her way to the new house a few days before the rest of the family and meets all the local neighborhood stereotypes on offer including the Step-ford wives, the Local Hunky yard cleaner and the Ice Cream Man. She is about to find that they have moved to a suburban hell hole.
The Ice Cream Truck also stars Dana Gaier (Despicable Me 3), John Redlinger (Thirst, Banshee), Emil Johnsen (Isolerad), Hilary Barraford (Go For Sisters), Jeff Daniel Phillips (31), and Lisa Ann Walter (War of the Worlds).
Im not going to say this is the worlds best movie but its a definite recommend. Was I expecting something else? Yes. Did I like what was presented? Yes. Johnston has given us a well constructed thriller. The only place it really falls apart is that… Well the kills are pretty easy, I personally like some cat and mouse. However Emil Johnson as the Ice Cream Man is creepy as shit. Deanna Russo is great in the lead so no complaints on that front and we got a cheeky little twist that made me go… HUH.
Not the strongest recommend I have given but you should give this flick a go and like I say at only 90 minutes your in and out before you know it. Personally I think you will get a kick from this movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stillwater (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Matt Damon - solid central performance (1 more)
Intelligent script
Life is Brutal
Positives:
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
