Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"I am iron man"
Marking the commencement of Marvel Cinematic Universe, catapulting Robert Downey Jr. into the league of Hollywood's biggest stars & also announcing the arrival of Marvel Studios into motion picture filmmaking for it is their first fully-financed project, Iron Man not only succeeds as a quality blend of style & substance but is also amongst the best origin stories cinema has come up with for a comic book superhero.
Iron Man tells the story of genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist Tony Stark who, while on his tour to war-torn Afghanistan for the demonstration of his new weaponry to United States military, is ambushed & taken hostage by a terrorist group. Working with another captive, he designs an exoskeleton to get out from there & after returning to US further refines his design. The plot covers the change his captivity brings in his entire personality.
Stylishly directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man aims for the same grounded approach that Christopher Nolan applied in Batman Begins & succeeds amazingly well for the most part. The screenplay is brimming with energy, wit & charm, and is brilliantly written & narrated. Production design provides it a very modern feel, Camerawork is vibrantly carried out, Editing briskly paces the whole story which also benefits from Ramin Djawadi's fitting score as well as clever use of existing songs.
Coming to the acting department, Iron Man features a star-studded cast in Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges & Terrence Howard but the film belongs to Downey Jr. who blazes brightly in red n gold with a performance that's absolutely fantastic, effortlessly charismatic & downright polished. Overshadowing the input of the rest & fitting the suit perfectly, this is one role that couldn't have gone to a better actor & how this gifted talent renders Tony Stark on screen is a further proof of that.
On an overall scale, Iron Man has enough power in it to please both fans of the comics as well as newcomers. Sure its third act isn't as impressive as the first two but the positives eclipse the negatives by a huge margin. Balancing its storytelling aspects with big budget extravaganza to triumph as a work of quality in the eyes of viewers n critics alike, Iron Man is a highly refreshing, wildly entertaining & largely satisfying crowd-pleaser that's hugely responsible for the foundation on which Marvel Studios stands today. Highly recommended.
Iron Man tells the story of genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist Tony Stark who, while on his tour to war-torn Afghanistan for the demonstration of his new weaponry to United States military, is ambushed & taken hostage by a terrorist group. Working with another captive, he designs an exoskeleton to get out from there & after returning to US further refines his design. The plot covers the change his captivity brings in his entire personality.
Stylishly directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man aims for the same grounded approach that Christopher Nolan applied in Batman Begins & succeeds amazingly well for the most part. The screenplay is brimming with energy, wit & charm, and is brilliantly written & narrated. Production design provides it a very modern feel, Camerawork is vibrantly carried out, Editing briskly paces the whole story which also benefits from Ramin Djawadi's fitting score as well as clever use of existing songs.
Coming to the acting department, Iron Man features a star-studded cast in Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges & Terrence Howard but the film belongs to Downey Jr. who blazes brightly in red n gold with a performance that's absolutely fantastic, effortlessly charismatic & downright polished. Overshadowing the input of the rest & fitting the suit perfectly, this is one role that couldn't have gone to a better actor & how this gifted talent renders Tony Stark on screen is a further proof of that.
On an overall scale, Iron Man has enough power in it to please both fans of the comics as well as newcomers. Sure its third act isn't as impressive as the first two but the positives eclipse the negatives by a huge margin. Balancing its storytelling aspects with big budget extravaganza to triumph as a work of quality in the eyes of viewers n critics alike, Iron Man is a highly refreshing, wildly entertaining & largely satisfying crowd-pleaser that's hugely responsible for the foundation on which Marvel Studios stands today. Highly recommended.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Taken 3 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Impossible to recommend
The first Taken propelled Liam Neeson to action man stardom and became one of the most surprising hits of 2009. Its successor to some extent managed to capture the same thrilling suspense despite its ridiculous 12A certification.
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Winchester: The House That Ghosts Built (2018) in Movies
Feb 2, 2018
It was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, when I saw the trailer for Winchester, I was a little intrigued. Not a lot, but a little. A bit more so when I realized that Helen Mirren was in it. Though I can’t say I could name anything else she’s been in off-hand, I did recognize that she had a bit of weight behind her name. Her presence, combined with Jason Clarke (who I recognize more as a “Hey, it’s that guy” than actually recognize) gave me some hope for the movie. Hence stealing away on a Friday afternoon, paying entirely too much money for a ticket and popcorn to get the big-screen experience.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Feb 28, 2018
Funny film with Intelligent humor
Heading into GAME NIGHT, I was trying to remember the last time I saw a good, funny film that did not rely on Gross-Out Humor or Sex & Fart jokes to mine it's laughs.
No need to try to remember now, for GAME NIGHT is a very funny, mostly clean, good old-fashioned comedy where the comedy comes out of how the characters react and interact with each other as an increasingly complex and out-of-control series of events batter them from every possible angle.
Co-Directed by John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (the duo previously co-Directed the remake of VACATION in 2015), GAME NIGHT tells the story of an ultra-competitive couple, Max & Annie (Jason Bateman & Rachel McAdams) who's weekly GAME NIGHT is upended by Max' much more successful older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) who promises to "up the ante" on game night by providing a "murder-mystery" type kidnapping. When real kidnappers show up and kidnap Brooks, the clueless couple - and their friends - try to solve what they think is a make believe mystery.
As Directed by Daley & Goldstein and with the subtle comedic stylings of Bateman & McAdams, this film succeeds very well in a calm, funny manner. The humorous parts of this film are viewed with kind of a sideways glance vs. the usual temptation to bash the audience over the head with it. It's as if the filmmakers and actors are relying on the intelligence of the audience to mine their humor. It was quite refreshing for me, as an audience member, to be treated with this respect. And...it was darned funny.
Joining Bateman and McAdams are Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris & Kylie Bunbury as the other 2 couples competing to solve the mystery. All are funny in their own way, but Magnussen rises slightly above the rest for his take on "the dumb blonde." But, surprisingly, the person who steals the film is Jessie Plemons as Max & Annie's strange neighbor. Plemons, heretofore known to me only as a dramatic actor, plays his character with such a deadpan earnestness, that I started chuckling whenever he just showed up on the screen - a very good sign, indeed.
If you are looking for a good, funny, film (one where you would be comfortable sitting through with your spouse), then run, don't walk to GAME NIGHT, it will be well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Stay through the end of the credits, it will be worth it.
No need to try to remember now, for GAME NIGHT is a very funny, mostly clean, good old-fashioned comedy where the comedy comes out of how the characters react and interact with each other as an increasingly complex and out-of-control series of events batter them from every possible angle.
Co-Directed by John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (the duo previously co-Directed the remake of VACATION in 2015), GAME NIGHT tells the story of an ultra-competitive couple, Max & Annie (Jason Bateman & Rachel McAdams) who's weekly GAME NIGHT is upended by Max' much more successful older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) who promises to "up the ante" on game night by providing a "murder-mystery" type kidnapping. When real kidnappers show up and kidnap Brooks, the clueless couple - and their friends - try to solve what they think is a make believe mystery.
As Directed by Daley & Goldstein and with the subtle comedic stylings of Bateman & McAdams, this film succeeds very well in a calm, funny manner. The humorous parts of this film are viewed with kind of a sideways glance vs. the usual temptation to bash the audience over the head with it. It's as if the filmmakers and actors are relying on the intelligence of the audience to mine their humor. It was quite refreshing for me, as an audience member, to be treated with this respect. And...it was darned funny.
Joining Bateman and McAdams are Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris & Kylie Bunbury as the other 2 couples competing to solve the mystery. All are funny in their own way, but Magnussen rises slightly above the rest for his take on "the dumb blonde." But, surprisingly, the person who steals the film is Jessie Plemons as Max & Annie's strange neighbor. Plemons, heretofore known to me only as a dramatic actor, plays his character with such a deadpan earnestness, that I started chuckling whenever he just showed up on the screen - a very good sign, indeed.
If you are looking for a good, funny, film (one where you would be comfortable sitting through with your spouse), then run, don't walk to GAME NIGHT, it will be well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Stay through the end of the credits, it will be worth it.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Bronson (2009) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Michael Peterson has always wanted to be famous, but didn't really have any potential to be much of anything. So he robbed a post office and received a seven year sentence. That seven years soon became over thirty and the majority of it was spent in solitary confinement. It was during this time that Michael Peterson let his alter-ego, Charles Bronson, take over. During his multi-year prison sentence, Peterson became violent and unpredictable. To this day, he's still considered to be Britain's most famous prisoner. Michael Peterson was no more and Charles Bronson was all that remained.
Bronson is one of the more interesting films I've had the pleasure of sitting through as of late. In the trailer (and movie poster), a quote can be seen where a reviewer called the film, "A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century." That quote is really spot-on. There is a big Clockwork Orange influence in this film. While Michael Peterson narrates the entire film, the film jumps between what actually happened and Peterson performing in front of an audience in a rather large theater. The make-up, the setting, and Hardy's performance are all very Clockwork Orange-esque. Another film that came to mind was Snatch. The action sequences and a lot of the humor gave off the same kind of vibe Guy Ritchie's film did. Bronson is very much its own film, but shares the same beloved qualities of the films mentioned.
Bronson is what it is because of Tom Hardy's performance. He's guiding you through his life, his dreams, and his goals while you're with him the duration of the film, so it's only logical that he steals the show since he gets the most screen time. The fact that he doesn't waste any of it is something to be proud of though. He makes what would be a rather dismal story entertaining, exciting, and worth sitting through. Hardy's performance is the highlight of the film. There's really no questioning that.
Bronson was really a sleeper hit for me since its premise didn't interest me at all, but it wound up luring me in with its trailer. It's a very unorthodox type of film that isn't like many other films out there. Films like Bronson think outside the box of normal cinema and is the type of gem you'd hope to find whenever you journey out to your favorite theater. If you're looking for a film that is a knock-down-drag-out, eccentric, thrill-ride with a strong lead actor performance, then look no further. Bronson is exactly what you're looking for.
Bronson is one of the more interesting films I've had the pleasure of sitting through as of late. In the trailer (and movie poster), a quote can be seen where a reviewer called the film, "A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century." That quote is really spot-on. There is a big Clockwork Orange influence in this film. While Michael Peterson narrates the entire film, the film jumps between what actually happened and Peterson performing in front of an audience in a rather large theater. The make-up, the setting, and Hardy's performance are all very Clockwork Orange-esque. Another film that came to mind was Snatch. The action sequences and a lot of the humor gave off the same kind of vibe Guy Ritchie's film did. Bronson is very much its own film, but shares the same beloved qualities of the films mentioned.
Bronson is what it is because of Tom Hardy's performance. He's guiding you through his life, his dreams, and his goals while you're with him the duration of the film, so it's only logical that he steals the show since he gets the most screen time. The fact that he doesn't waste any of it is something to be proud of though. He makes what would be a rather dismal story entertaining, exciting, and worth sitting through. Hardy's performance is the highlight of the film. There's really no questioning that.
Bronson was really a sleeper hit for me since its premise didn't interest me at all, but it wound up luring me in with its trailer. It's a very unorthodox type of film that isn't like many other films out there. Films like Bronson think outside the box of normal cinema and is the type of gem you'd hope to find whenever you journey out to your favorite theater. If you're looking for a film that is a knock-down-drag-out, eccentric, thrill-ride with a strong lead actor performance, then look no further. Bronson is exactly what you're looking for.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Premonition (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Linda Hanson (Sandra Bullock), Is a woman whose comfortable life is about to to turned upside down when her husband (Julian Mc Mahon) is killed in a tragic car accident while away on a business trip. Suddenly a windowed mother of two young girls Linda is grief stricken and falls asleep wondering what she will do to handle her loss.
When Linda awakens the next morning, she is shocked to discover her husband alive and well downstairs. This bizzare occurence sets a chain of events into motion where each day she awakens, finds that her husband is either alive or dead. What is even more bizzare is that some days she awakens days in the future after her husbands accident to learn that other events have transpired while other days she awakens before the accident and wonders about her sanity.
Eventually Linda decides to map out the days she has visited and learns that she is covering the days leading up to and following the accident, and sets a plan into motion to answer the questions she has about why she is suddenly moving back and forth through time each day, as well as the events surrounding her visions of the future.
While the premise of the film is good, it looses momentum very quickly and soon becomes a myriad of plot holes and worn scenarios that ultimately leads to a very silly, and wholly unsatisfying ending, that does little to resolve the premise and mystery of the setup.
What further frustrated me about the film is the utter lack of chemistry between Bullock and Mc Mahon, who come across very stiffly during their scenes with one another, and seem almost to be taken an Acting 101 seminar rather than convincing us they are a married couple.
Mc Mahon’s part is also so lacking in substance I was suprised that an actor of his status would accept such a shallow part, as there is very little for him to do in this film as he is reduced at best to a moving prop and a plot device for much of the film.
This ultimately dooms the film as we feel very little for the characters as Bullock is very bland and by the numbers in her performance, which really strains the audeince to care for the chacters and their outcomes which is essential in a film of this type.
As it stands, Premonition is a good idea that goes nowhere fast, which is what I think will ultimately become of this film after its opening week at the box office.
When Linda awakens the next morning, she is shocked to discover her husband alive and well downstairs. This bizzare occurence sets a chain of events into motion where each day she awakens, finds that her husband is either alive or dead. What is even more bizzare is that some days she awakens days in the future after her husbands accident to learn that other events have transpired while other days she awakens before the accident and wonders about her sanity.
Eventually Linda decides to map out the days she has visited and learns that she is covering the days leading up to and following the accident, and sets a plan into motion to answer the questions she has about why she is suddenly moving back and forth through time each day, as well as the events surrounding her visions of the future.
While the premise of the film is good, it looses momentum very quickly and soon becomes a myriad of plot holes and worn scenarios that ultimately leads to a very silly, and wholly unsatisfying ending, that does little to resolve the premise and mystery of the setup.
What further frustrated me about the film is the utter lack of chemistry between Bullock and Mc Mahon, who come across very stiffly during their scenes with one another, and seem almost to be taken an Acting 101 seminar rather than convincing us they are a married couple.
Mc Mahon’s part is also so lacking in substance I was suprised that an actor of his status would accept such a shallow part, as there is very little for him to do in this film as he is reduced at best to a moving prop and a plot device for much of the film.
This ultimately dooms the film as we feel very little for the characters as Bullock is very bland and by the numbers in her performance, which really strains the audeince to care for the chacters and their outcomes which is essential in a film of this type.
As it stands, Premonition is a good idea that goes nowhere fast, which is what I think will ultimately become of this film after its opening week at the box office.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Honestly Christian Bale should probably get an award for his commitment to a role. Gaining weight, doing exercises to get a thicker neck as well as studying up on all the policies and things so that he could ad-lib in character... just wow. This guy might just be a couple of parts crazy.
Being relatively fresh out of The Front Runner I was wondering how I was going to fair with another American political film. The two are very different beasts, The Front Runner is generally inoffensive and consistent drama while Vice tends to sway wildly between scenes of drama and some comedy.
Vice uses a lot of different ways to convey the story, it bleeps and blurs faces, it uses shots that avoid faces and candids with voiceovers, there are moments that go from 0-60 in no time at all. Visually as well as audibly it's chaos, and the timeline jumps around a fair bit, but at least that was easy to follow given the ageing that the characters go through.
As well as Bale's incredible performance a shout out has to go to Sam Rockwell. From Justin Hammer and Dixon in Three Billboards to Zaphod Beeblebrox he has a great range as a supporting actor.
I did like that at the beginning with regards to having to fill in the blanks of the story it said... "but we did our f***ng best." I'm sure it won't stop people saying that the film isn't accurately depicting history but I appreciate the fact it tries to stop them.
Vice is a crazy concotion of things and an assault on the senses, it has the wow factor though. Overall there are a lot of characters to follow. Some portrayed with stellar performances and others that fall by the wayside and left me confused about who they actually were. I think this just missed the mark for me, my knowledge of US politics being limited to what makes the news and social media means that again this is probably a film better suited for politics buffs and the American audiences.
There's a mid-credit scene which I did not stay for, I think this was probably a benefit to this review as by the sounds of it I would have left more confused after seeing it.
What you should do
If politics is your thing then you should definitely give it a go, you might have more luck with it than I did.
Being relatively fresh out of The Front Runner I was wondering how I was going to fair with another American political film. The two are very different beasts, The Front Runner is generally inoffensive and consistent drama while Vice tends to sway wildly between scenes of drama and some comedy.
Vice uses a lot of different ways to convey the story, it bleeps and blurs faces, it uses shots that avoid faces and candids with voiceovers, there are moments that go from 0-60 in no time at all. Visually as well as audibly it's chaos, and the timeline jumps around a fair bit, but at least that was easy to follow given the ageing that the characters go through.
As well as Bale's incredible performance a shout out has to go to Sam Rockwell. From Justin Hammer and Dixon in Three Billboards to Zaphod Beeblebrox he has a great range as a supporting actor.
I did like that at the beginning with regards to having to fill in the blanks of the story it said... "but we did our f***ng best." I'm sure it won't stop people saying that the film isn't accurately depicting history but I appreciate the fact it tries to stop them.
Vice is a crazy concotion of things and an assault on the senses, it has the wow factor though. Overall there are a lot of characters to follow. Some portrayed with stellar performances and others that fall by the wayside and left me confused about who they actually were. I think this just missed the mark for me, my knowledge of US politics being limited to what makes the news and social media means that again this is probably a film better suited for politics buffs and the American audiences.
There's a mid-credit scene which I did not stay for, I think this was probably a benefit to this review as by the sounds of it I would have left more confused after seeing it.
What you should do
If politics is your thing then you should definitely give it a go, you might have more luck with it than I did.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I long for the blockbusters to come around again so I can stop saying "this is great but..." It has definitely become my mantra for January and I think it's the curse of awards season.
Melissa McCarthy is the second actor this month to take a big leap in genre and I'm loving it. Her comedy offerings have always amused me, Life Of The Party last year was great fun and I've just discovered she was DNAmy in Kim Possible so that means I need to watch all of that again!
I'm in danger of going off point now I've realised that last fact. Where was I?
McCarthy... Lee Israel is rather brash and as such has the potential to be entirely unlikeable, the performance is excellent though and McCarthy manages to make every situation feel very real. Despite that though I didn't get any real emotions out of any of it.
Luckily Richard E. Grant's inclusion allows the film to have a few lighter moments and the pair work wonderfully together on screen. I'm rather glad that this erased some of the damage The Nutcracker And The Four Realms did.
At no point during the film did I think anything was badly done. Lead and supporting actors were brilliant, the story it was based on was an interesting one... insert my phrase of the month here... The main issue I had with the film was pacing. I came out thinking that was a long two hour film before realising that it was only actually an hour and 46 minutes. At the mid-point my interest dwindled severely for a while but it did thankfully pick up a little. There are several bits that don't feel like they have much of a place in the story, whether they're part of the original narrative or added for the film I don't know but while they might have been there for background they didn't add any impact to the main story.
This rating has me a little at odds, the stars are mainly for the acting and the switch in pace for Melissa McCarthy, and as I said, nothing is badly done. Even with the limited audience potential this could have been an amazing film had it had something to keep you interested the whole way through.
What you should do
It's got some good points, but it is a very niche subject matter so I don't think I'd be recommending a viewing to anyone but my most booky friends.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All those glorious bookshops!
Melissa McCarthy is the second actor this month to take a big leap in genre and I'm loving it. Her comedy offerings have always amused me, Life Of The Party last year was great fun and I've just discovered she was DNAmy in Kim Possible so that means I need to watch all of that again!
I'm in danger of going off point now I've realised that last fact. Where was I?
McCarthy... Lee Israel is rather brash and as such has the potential to be entirely unlikeable, the performance is excellent though and McCarthy manages to make every situation feel very real. Despite that though I didn't get any real emotions out of any of it.
Luckily Richard E. Grant's inclusion allows the film to have a few lighter moments and the pair work wonderfully together on screen. I'm rather glad that this erased some of the damage The Nutcracker And The Four Realms did.
At no point during the film did I think anything was badly done. Lead and supporting actors were brilliant, the story it was based on was an interesting one... insert my phrase of the month here... The main issue I had with the film was pacing. I came out thinking that was a long two hour film before realising that it was only actually an hour and 46 minutes. At the mid-point my interest dwindled severely for a while but it did thankfully pick up a little. There are several bits that don't feel like they have much of a place in the story, whether they're part of the original narrative or added for the film I don't know but while they might have been there for background they didn't add any impact to the main story.
This rating has me a little at odds, the stars are mainly for the acting and the switch in pace for Melissa McCarthy, and as I said, nothing is badly done. Even with the limited audience potential this could have been an amazing film had it had something to keep you interested the whole way through.
What you should do
It's got some good points, but it is a very niche subject matter so I don't think I'd be recommending a viewing to anyone but my most booky friends.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All those glorious bookshops!