Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Watching how Solomon struggles to just survive let alone becoming free again. We see how different men who have slaves treat them, some well some badly. The story shows the tragic truth about how slaves were treated and even though this story get a happy ending of freedom, most never got that chance, with this still happening in the modern world it should make everyone be thankful for the fact they are free now. The story is an inspiration story of survival and not giving up hope. (10/10)
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Beautiful Mind (2001) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Beautiful Mind starts as we see John Nash (Crowe) start his time at Princeton University where we meet fellow students Sol (Goldberg), Hansen (Lucas), Bender (Rapp), Ainsley (Gray-Stanford) and his roommate Charles (Bettany). Struggling to find his place in the University it takes an everyday occurrence for John to final start rolling on his theory.
After becoming the brightest student John moves onto becoming a teacher while secretly working for the government on code breaking reporting to Parcher (Harris). While teaching he meets the beautiful Alicia Nash (Connelly) and the two strike it off before starting their lives together.
When it becomes apparent John is struggling to manage both live the people that care about him with Charles returning to his life, Parcher pushing him too much and his wife wondering what he is up to, but this beautiful mind is about to be tested when Dr Rosen (Plummer) a psychologist enters his life.
A Beautiful Mind is a wonderfully drama showing us the story of one of the greatest minds of our generation. We see how difficult the life was for John before learning of his mind being damaged due to his schizophrenia. We follow from his time in school until his Noble Peace Prize. We see John deal and learn with his condition to still go on achieve greatness in his life. This is such a brilliant story that shows how success you can achieve your potential regardless.
Actor Review
Russell Crowe: John Nash is the brilliant mathematician that believes he has been working for the government cracking codes, but when we and he learns the truth we discover this beautiful mind is damaged in other ways. We see John’s life from early Princeton till his final acceptance in the scientific world. Russell gives the best performance of his career her where he shines in the drama.john
Ed Harris: Parcher is the man John believes works for the government as he lives the life of mystery and code breaking John believes he is part of. Ed is great in this supporting role.parcher
Jennifer Connelly: Alicia Nash starts off as a student of John’s before being the only person that sees there is something wrong with his mind, she supports him through every decision in their lives. Jennifer is brilliant in this role of the patience wife.
Paul Bettany: Charles is the roommate John has at Princeton that helps him break out of the problems he has been suffering through but we learn the truth about Charles once we learn John’s mental state. Paul put himself on the map with this great supporting role.charles
Support Cast: A Beautiful Mind has a brilliant supporting cast that all give performances worthy of this subject matter.
Director Review: Ron Howard – Ron shows that he can handle the serious films that are important to see the greatest people in human history.
Biographical: A Beautiful Mind shows the struggles John Nash had with his own sanity to achieve unlocking all of the potential inside his mind.
History: A Beautiful Mind is one film that shows the mind of someone so troubled achieving so much.
Settings: A Beautiful Mind uses the real life location re-created for the story to be unfolded in.
Suggestion: A Beautiful Mind is one for everyone to watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: The Pen scene.
Worst Part: Slightly too much time on the imagined side of John’s life.
Favourite Quote: Dr Rosen ‘Imagine if you suddenly learned that the people, the places, the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?’
Believability: Based on the John Nash and his amazing story.
Chances of Tears: Maybe a few nearer the end.
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 4 Oscars including Best Picture, Director and Supporting Actress with another 4 Nomination including Best Actor.
Budget: $60 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 15 Minutes
Tagline: The Only Thing Greater Than the Power of the Mind is the Courage of the Heart
Trivia: John Nash is shown smoking in the film. In reality, he was a militant anti-smoker.
Overall: Brilliant Biographical film that is a must watch for all.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/27/paul-bettany-weekend-a-beautiful-mind-2001/
After becoming the brightest student John moves onto becoming a teacher while secretly working for the government on code breaking reporting to Parcher (Harris). While teaching he meets the beautiful Alicia Nash (Connelly) and the two strike it off before starting their lives together.
When it becomes apparent John is struggling to manage both live the people that care about him with Charles returning to his life, Parcher pushing him too much and his wife wondering what he is up to, but this beautiful mind is about to be tested when Dr Rosen (Plummer) a psychologist enters his life.
A Beautiful Mind is a wonderfully drama showing us the story of one of the greatest minds of our generation. We see how difficult the life was for John before learning of his mind being damaged due to his schizophrenia. We follow from his time in school until his Noble Peace Prize. We see John deal and learn with his condition to still go on achieve greatness in his life. This is such a brilliant story that shows how success you can achieve your potential regardless.
Actor Review
Russell Crowe: John Nash is the brilliant mathematician that believes he has been working for the government cracking codes, but when we and he learns the truth we discover this beautiful mind is damaged in other ways. We see John’s life from early Princeton till his final acceptance in the scientific world. Russell gives the best performance of his career her where he shines in the drama.john
Ed Harris: Parcher is the man John believes works for the government as he lives the life of mystery and code breaking John believes he is part of. Ed is great in this supporting role.parcher
Jennifer Connelly: Alicia Nash starts off as a student of John’s before being the only person that sees there is something wrong with his mind, she supports him through every decision in their lives. Jennifer is brilliant in this role of the patience wife.
Paul Bettany: Charles is the roommate John has at Princeton that helps him break out of the problems he has been suffering through but we learn the truth about Charles once we learn John’s mental state. Paul put himself on the map with this great supporting role.charles
Support Cast: A Beautiful Mind has a brilliant supporting cast that all give performances worthy of this subject matter.
Director Review: Ron Howard – Ron shows that he can handle the serious films that are important to see the greatest people in human history.
Biographical: A Beautiful Mind shows the struggles John Nash had with his own sanity to achieve unlocking all of the potential inside his mind.
History: A Beautiful Mind is one film that shows the mind of someone so troubled achieving so much.
Settings: A Beautiful Mind uses the real life location re-created for the story to be unfolded in.
Suggestion: A Beautiful Mind is one for everyone to watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: The Pen scene.
Worst Part: Slightly too much time on the imagined side of John’s life.
Favourite Quote: Dr Rosen ‘Imagine if you suddenly learned that the people, the places, the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?’
Believability: Based on the John Nash and his amazing story.
Chances of Tears: Maybe a few nearer the end.
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 4 Oscars including Best Picture, Director and Supporting Actress with another 4 Nomination including Best Actor.
Budget: $60 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 15 Minutes
Tagline: The Only Thing Greater Than the Power of the Mind is the Courage of the Heart
Trivia: John Nash is shown smoking in the film. In reality, he was a militant anti-smoker.
Overall: Brilliant Biographical film that is a must watch for all.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/27/paul-bettany-weekend-a-beautiful-mind-2001/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Haunting In Cawdor (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Haunting in Cawdor starts as Vivian Miller (Young) who has been serving out her jail sentence where she ends up getting sent to help at the Cawdor Barn Theatre after a string of good behaviour. The plan along with other criminals is to help restore and put on a show for eccentric failed actor Lawrence O’Neill (Elwes). He wants to put on a show of Macbeth with all of the cast getting different roles each night. Vivian starts hearing strange goings on around the camp but it isn’t long before Lawrence learns that she has had a very twisted past and could be dangerous. As the play continues to be prepared the secrets keep coming out and so does the ghosts haunting the theatre, can they be laid to rest?
A Haunting in Cawdor gives us a horror thriller that shows us having to follow the traditional ghost haunting to try and help uncover what really happened to them. We get to put this situation with young offenders just about to be released where out lead has her own problems. While everything is built up nicely even if slightly slow we get to see what really happened before learning the complete truth. For me there isn’t enough focus on the tragic story and we are left with a good ending even if it just sort of happens.
Actor Review
Cary Elwes: Lawrence O’Neill is the theatre director who is giving these young offenders a chance to give back for their crimes. He is putting together a new performance of Macbeth only he has a past with the play that puts everyone at risk. Cary is good in this role but you would expect that from him.lary
Shelby Young: Vivian Miller is one of the offenders who is given a chance in this theatre production and clean-up work. She starts to become paranoid which is a side effect she has been having for years leading us to wonder just what is real. She gets the lead in the play making her the victim of the ghost haunting the play. Shelby is good in this leading horror role.vivian
Michael Welch: Roddy is a young man that keeps turning up in Vivian’s life, he tries to make her more relaxed about where she finds herself having claimed to have spent time there too. Michael is menacing but we never see enough of him.roddy
Alexandria DeBerry: Jeanette is the former member of the theatre who appeared in one of the recording that Vivian watched but she is also haunting the new residents of the theatre. Alexandria much like Michal just isn’t involved as much as we would like.
Support Cast: A Haunting in Cawdor has a supporting cast that all are part of the camp, we have the typical characters you would expect to see there without any really standing out.
Director Review: Phil Wurtzel – Phil gives us a nice horror that slow builds to an ending we kind of see coming.
Horror: A Haunting in Cawdor has a couple of good if not easy jump scares.
Thriller: A Haunting in Cawdor does keep us wondering to where it will end up going.
Settings: A Haunting in Cawdor uses the setting well putting our characters in an isolated location with a past tragic event.
Special Effects: A Haunting in Cawdor has good effects when needed without using them too much.
Suggestion: A Haunting in Cawdor is one for the horror fans to try. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Hauntings all come off nicely.
Worst Part: Too much on the camp atmosphere.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: The Gallows
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1.2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: Recent parolee tortured by the curse of Macbeth
Overall: Tidy horror that has good scares around the rehabilitation idea behind the film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/02/15/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-a-haunting-in-cawbor-2015/
A Haunting in Cawdor gives us a horror thriller that shows us having to follow the traditional ghost haunting to try and help uncover what really happened to them. We get to put this situation with young offenders just about to be released where out lead has her own problems. While everything is built up nicely even if slightly slow we get to see what really happened before learning the complete truth. For me there isn’t enough focus on the tragic story and we are left with a good ending even if it just sort of happens.
Actor Review
Cary Elwes: Lawrence O’Neill is the theatre director who is giving these young offenders a chance to give back for their crimes. He is putting together a new performance of Macbeth only he has a past with the play that puts everyone at risk. Cary is good in this role but you would expect that from him.lary
Shelby Young: Vivian Miller is one of the offenders who is given a chance in this theatre production and clean-up work. She starts to become paranoid which is a side effect she has been having for years leading us to wonder just what is real. She gets the lead in the play making her the victim of the ghost haunting the play. Shelby is good in this leading horror role.vivian
Michael Welch: Roddy is a young man that keeps turning up in Vivian’s life, he tries to make her more relaxed about where she finds herself having claimed to have spent time there too. Michael is menacing but we never see enough of him.roddy
Alexandria DeBerry: Jeanette is the former member of the theatre who appeared in one of the recording that Vivian watched but she is also haunting the new residents of the theatre. Alexandria much like Michal just isn’t involved as much as we would like.
Support Cast: A Haunting in Cawdor has a supporting cast that all are part of the camp, we have the typical characters you would expect to see there without any really standing out.
Director Review: Phil Wurtzel – Phil gives us a nice horror that slow builds to an ending we kind of see coming.
Horror: A Haunting in Cawdor has a couple of good if not easy jump scares.
Thriller: A Haunting in Cawdor does keep us wondering to where it will end up going.
Settings: A Haunting in Cawdor uses the setting well putting our characters in an isolated location with a past tragic event.
Special Effects: A Haunting in Cawdor has good effects when needed without using them too much.
Suggestion: A Haunting in Cawdor is one for the horror fans to try. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Hauntings all come off nicely.
Worst Part: Too much on the camp atmosphere.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: The Gallows
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1.2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: Recent parolee tortured by the curse of Macbeth
Overall: Tidy horror that has good scares around the rehabilitation idea behind the film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/02/15/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-a-haunting-in-cawbor-2015/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Divergent: Allegiant starts with Evelyn (Watts) closing the walls, has something to do with the last one. Tris (Woodley) and Four (James) are on the outskirts and Four is going to try and change the mind of Evelyn. When Evelyn starts acting the same as the former leader Tris and Four along with the other friends Caleb (Elgort), Christina (Kravitz) and Peter (Teller) plan their escape.
Over the wall they only find destruction before being rescued by David’s (Daniels) people the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who created the world they started in. This time Tris gets the chance to save the world not just a city, but can she trust everyone around her this time?
Divergent: Allegiant is the third instalment of the franchise with at least one more to go, great. This time we meet yet another group of people who want control of the city that Tris ends up having stop. The plan seems very familiar oh yeah it is the basic plot of Batman Begins, wanting to spread gas in a city to kill/infect everyone. I am getting tired of these because what happens is they hire a well-respected actor only to make them the BAD GUY yet again. Simply put this is nothing new.
Actor Review
Shailene Woodley: Tris having opened the box to the outside world last time escapes the city only to learn that the city is part of an experiment to find genetic perfection which is why they search for the Divergent in the first place. Tris is the most powerful Divergent, purest if you like that must represent the success of the experiment. Shailene is working her way through the contract where we know she can do better.tris
Theo James: Four for is the boyfriend, fellow Divergent and son of the new dictator of Chicago. When he escapes he finds himself being separated from Tris for not being pure finding it hard to adjust to the change. Theo improves from last time out but let’s face it his body got him this role.
Naomi Watts: Evelyn is the new dictator in Chicago that has continued in the ways the ruler before had, she is ready to fight anyone who goes against her. Naomi is wasted in this role where you would expect to see a lot more from her.
Jeff Daniels: David the running the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who have been watching Chicago for years, he sees Tris as the first case of purification to come out of the city proving their experiment has been working at last. Jeff is the star of the show without being too impressive.david
Support Cast: Divergent: Allegiant has a big supporting cast with some returning and a few more added but it is hard to keep up with who is work with who.
Director Review: Robert Schwentke – Robert gives us some very good shots but the story is very bland.
Action: Divergent: Allegiant has very basic action sequence you would expect to see now in the young adult genre.
Adventure: Divergent: Allegiant continues an adventure I guess.
Mystery: Divergent: Allegiant add mystery to where everything is going but really is milking it now.
Sci-Fi: Divergent: Allegiant brings us into a sci-fi of the future but too bright for the bleakness.
Thriller: Divergent: Allegiant doesn’t really keep us on the edge like it should have done.
Settings: Divergent: Allegiant continues to expand the world in this universe without really giving us enough.
Special Effects: Divergent: Allegiant has some good effects without being anything breath taking.
Suggestion: Divergent: Allegiant does improve on Insurgent but still going the wrong way, skip. (Skip)
Best Part: Peter is so funny.
Worst Part: More of the same.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Hunger Games Mockingjays.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: Break the boundaries of your world
Overall: Yet another bland sequel to a franchise which has gone on too long.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/28/divergent-allegiant-2016/
Over the wall they only find destruction before being rescued by David’s (Daniels) people the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who created the world they started in. This time Tris gets the chance to save the world not just a city, but can she trust everyone around her this time?
Divergent: Allegiant is the third instalment of the franchise with at least one more to go, great. This time we meet yet another group of people who want control of the city that Tris ends up having stop. The plan seems very familiar oh yeah it is the basic plot of Batman Begins, wanting to spread gas in a city to kill/infect everyone. I am getting tired of these because what happens is they hire a well-respected actor only to make them the BAD GUY yet again. Simply put this is nothing new.
Actor Review
Shailene Woodley: Tris having opened the box to the outside world last time escapes the city only to learn that the city is part of an experiment to find genetic perfection which is why they search for the Divergent in the first place. Tris is the most powerful Divergent, purest if you like that must represent the success of the experiment. Shailene is working her way through the contract where we know she can do better.tris
Theo James: Four for is the boyfriend, fellow Divergent and son of the new dictator of Chicago. When he escapes he finds himself being separated from Tris for not being pure finding it hard to adjust to the change. Theo improves from last time out but let’s face it his body got him this role.
Naomi Watts: Evelyn is the new dictator in Chicago that has continued in the ways the ruler before had, she is ready to fight anyone who goes against her. Naomi is wasted in this role where you would expect to see a lot more from her.
Jeff Daniels: David the running the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who have been watching Chicago for years, he sees Tris as the first case of purification to come out of the city proving their experiment has been working at last. Jeff is the star of the show without being too impressive.david
Support Cast: Divergent: Allegiant has a big supporting cast with some returning and a few more added but it is hard to keep up with who is work with who.
Director Review: Robert Schwentke – Robert gives us some very good shots but the story is very bland.
Action: Divergent: Allegiant has very basic action sequence you would expect to see now in the young adult genre.
Adventure: Divergent: Allegiant continues an adventure I guess.
Mystery: Divergent: Allegiant add mystery to where everything is going but really is milking it now.
Sci-Fi: Divergent: Allegiant brings us into a sci-fi of the future but too bright for the bleakness.
Thriller: Divergent: Allegiant doesn’t really keep us on the edge like it should have done.
Settings: Divergent: Allegiant continues to expand the world in this universe without really giving us enough.
Special Effects: Divergent: Allegiant has some good effects without being anything breath taking.
Suggestion: Divergent: Allegiant does improve on Insurgent but still going the wrong way, skip. (Skip)
Best Part: Peter is so funny.
Worst Part: More of the same.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Hunger Games Mockingjays.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: Break the boundaries of your world
Overall: Yet another bland sequel to a franchise which has gone on too long.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/28/divergent-allegiant-2016/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
GREAT chemistry between Bale and Damon
Most people are attending - or staying away from - the new James Mangold film, FORD v FERRARI because it is a "race car flick". But to label it as just that is doing a disservice to this film, so if that is what is keeping you away from this movie, think again, for this film is much more than a race car film.
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Delivers What Is Expected
Like eating comfort food on a cold, wintery day, sitting down to catch the latest Scorsese/DeNiro mob movie filled me with a warmth that was satisfying for it's familiarity. It is a film landscape mined by professionals who know this genre of movie well.
There is a terrific film in this 3 1/2 hour epic - if only "Marty" would have trimmed the fat to find it.
Telling the real-life story (with some conjecture and fabrications), THE IRISHMAN tells the tale of...well...Irishman Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro) a working stiff who rises in the ranks of mobster Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) to be one of his chief enforcers and the personal bodyguard to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Paciino).
In the lead, DeNiro commands the screen like the DeNiro of old. His Frank Sheeran is menacing, razor-focused on his objectives. You never question Frank's loyalties and his ability to keep silent. DeNiro shows this by be being silent for a good part of this film, even though he is on screen for most of it. He is a commanding force that requires that we pay attention to him.
It was good to see Pesci back onscreen as Russell Buffalino. His mob boss is pragmatic, making decisions sternly and expecting his people to follow them, no questions asked. His presence on the screen is almost as commanding as DeNiro's and I wouldn't be surprised to see DeNiro (Best Actor) and Pesci (Best Supporting Actor) be in the mix come Oscar time.
In lesser, (almost cameo), roles - but faring very well - is a "who's who" of character actors, Harvey Keitel (who I would have LOVED to have seen much, much more in this film), Ray Romano, Bobby Canavale, Jesse Pleimens and Anna Paquin, I'm sure all jumped at the chance to appear - however briefly - in a Scorsese mob epic.
Faring less well in this film is Al Pacio as Jimmy Hoffa. He is back to his "yelling Al Pacino" ways of films like SCENT OF A WOMAN. His Hoffa is pretty one note and, consequently, his scenes with DeNiro are ineffective mostly because Pacino is chewing up the scenery (and yelling) while DeNiro is sitting silent and staring and listening to Pacino. This was a major disappointment for me, but (fortunately), Hoffa is in only about 1/3 of this long film, so while it hampered my enjoyment of the film, it didn't ruin it.
Credit (and blame) for all of this goes to master Director Martin Scorsese who has mined these waters more successfully in CASINO, THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS (his best film, IMO). This film is a loving pastiche to these types of films and a bygone era - and he chose to make it for NETFLIX for he wanted to make a sprawling epic and take his time in telling the story he wanted to tell. This is evidenced in the 3 1/2 hour length of this film, which if filled with long tracking shots set to a backdrop of Italian crooners singing old standards. It's a throwback to a different time and place, one that these players know well.
Scorsese has stated the he only decided to make this film because the "de-aging" software the he used to make DeNiro and Pesci look 30 years younger was "good enough" to use. And I would agree with that statement. The de-aging of these 2 (and others) is "good enough", in some scenes I forgot I was watching a de-aged DeNiro and Pesci, while in some other scenes, I could spot the trick. Again, it was "good enough" and not distracting (unless you were looking to make it distracting, then you probably found what you were looking for).
But for me - a fan of these types of films, I was not disappointed. It was about what I expected it to be. If you were looking for something different and new, look elsewhere, you will be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
There is a terrific film in this 3 1/2 hour epic - if only "Marty" would have trimmed the fat to find it.
Telling the real-life story (with some conjecture and fabrications), THE IRISHMAN tells the tale of...well...Irishman Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro) a working stiff who rises in the ranks of mobster Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) to be one of his chief enforcers and the personal bodyguard to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Paciino).
In the lead, DeNiro commands the screen like the DeNiro of old. His Frank Sheeran is menacing, razor-focused on his objectives. You never question Frank's loyalties and his ability to keep silent. DeNiro shows this by be being silent for a good part of this film, even though he is on screen for most of it. He is a commanding force that requires that we pay attention to him.
It was good to see Pesci back onscreen as Russell Buffalino. His mob boss is pragmatic, making decisions sternly and expecting his people to follow them, no questions asked. His presence on the screen is almost as commanding as DeNiro's and I wouldn't be surprised to see DeNiro (Best Actor) and Pesci (Best Supporting Actor) be in the mix come Oscar time.
In lesser, (almost cameo), roles - but faring very well - is a "who's who" of character actors, Harvey Keitel (who I would have LOVED to have seen much, much more in this film), Ray Romano, Bobby Canavale, Jesse Pleimens and Anna Paquin, I'm sure all jumped at the chance to appear - however briefly - in a Scorsese mob epic.
Faring less well in this film is Al Pacio as Jimmy Hoffa. He is back to his "yelling Al Pacino" ways of films like SCENT OF A WOMAN. His Hoffa is pretty one note and, consequently, his scenes with DeNiro are ineffective mostly because Pacino is chewing up the scenery (and yelling) while DeNiro is sitting silent and staring and listening to Pacino. This was a major disappointment for me, but (fortunately), Hoffa is in only about 1/3 of this long film, so while it hampered my enjoyment of the film, it didn't ruin it.
Credit (and blame) for all of this goes to master Director Martin Scorsese who has mined these waters more successfully in CASINO, THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS (his best film, IMO). This film is a loving pastiche to these types of films and a bygone era - and he chose to make it for NETFLIX for he wanted to make a sprawling epic and take his time in telling the story he wanted to tell. This is evidenced in the 3 1/2 hour length of this film, which if filled with long tracking shots set to a backdrop of Italian crooners singing old standards. It's a throwback to a different time and place, one that these players know well.
Scorsese has stated the he only decided to make this film because the "de-aging" software the he used to make DeNiro and Pesci look 30 years younger was "good enough" to use. And I would agree with that statement. The de-aging of these 2 (and others) is "good enough", in some scenes I forgot I was watching a de-aged DeNiro and Pesci, while in some other scenes, I could spot the trick. Again, it was "good enough" and not distracting (unless you were looking to make it distracting, then you probably found what you were looking for).
But for me - a fan of these types of films, I was not disappointed. It was about what I expected it to be. If you were looking for something different and new, look elsewhere, you will be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cider House Rules (1999) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Great acting, great writing, great directing
When we do our "Secret Cinema" adventures at our house (one person picks the film and the rest of the family doesn't know what it is until it starts running), we try to give clues. This film was nominated for 7 Oscars for the 1999 season, winning 2 - including a 2nd BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR for a veteran actor. It is based on a wonderful novel and features 3 young actors well before they became stars.
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Silk Road (2021) in Movies
Mar 12, 2021
Squandered a promising story
Silk Road is a 2021 thriller from writer/director Tiller Russell focusing on the true story of Ross Ulbricht who created and operated the darknet marketplace of the same name, selling drugs and other illegal items across the globe. On paper, Silk Road sounds like it should be a fascinating, interesting story and even the trailer makes it appear exciting, but unfortunately it never quite manages to pull off what it promises.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.