Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Creed (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Adonis Johnson (Michael B Jordan) has always been a struggle. He has moved from one facility to another under the care the state constantly fighting for his place in society. When he is adopted by Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad), he learns that his father was actually legendary fighter Apollo Creed who had a dalliance with his mother and died before Adonis was born. Flash forward year’s later, despite a life of privilege and a good job, Adonis yearns to be a boxer and follow in his father’s footsteps. Unable to secure fights, he travels across the border to fight on the circuit in Mexico where he is undefeated. When able to quench his conflicting emotions, Adonis moves to Philadelphia to live a simpler life. He hopes to take pointers from his father’s chief rival and longtime friend Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), but is at first hesitant to reveal his true connection to Creed. This is the promise of the new film “Creed”, which is a very worthy and in joy of all entry into the popular “Rocky” series. In older, more cautious and world beaten Balboa is hesitant to go back into the world that made him a household name, but eventually is determined to train the young boxer and in doing so both of them learn what it is to be a champion in and out of the ring.
There is the uplifting training and human stories that made the series so popular but what really keeps this from being a retread is the solid work of Jordan and Stallone. Jordan is very much his own character and not trying to copy his father. He is headstrong, impulsive, quick to anger, but also willing to listen to the wisdom of Rocky. Stallone does perhaps his best work in a very long time in a supporting role by playing a more vulnerable and wise character that is not afraid to show his humanity. This is a very welcome change for the actor who is best known as larger-than-life and unstoppable in many of the roles that he portrays. I know it would be considered a long shot but this is the type of performance that veteran actors get award nominations for in a supporting role.
Of course Johnson is leading up to his big fight with destiny that will either make or break him against an overwhelmingly unstoppable opponent but the well-choreographed and paste fight sequences will have you on the edge of your seat and captivated much like the best sequences from the earlier Rocky films.
This was a very solid and entertaining film that should delight fans of the series as well as sports films in general and was one of the most enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/23/creed/
There is the uplifting training and human stories that made the series so popular but what really keeps this from being a retread is the solid work of Jordan and Stallone. Jordan is very much his own character and not trying to copy his father. He is headstrong, impulsive, quick to anger, but also willing to listen to the wisdom of Rocky. Stallone does perhaps his best work in a very long time in a supporting role by playing a more vulnerable and wise character that is not afraid to show his humanity. This is a very welcome change for the actor who is best known as larger-than-life and unstoppable in many of the roles that he portrays. I know it would be considered a long shot but this is the type of performance that veteran actors get award nominations for in a supporting role.
Of course Johnson is leading up to his big fight with destiny that will either make or break him against an overwhelmingly unstoppable opponent but the well-choreographed and paste fight sequences will have you on the edge of your seat and captivated much like the best sequences from the earlier Rocky films.
This was a very solid and entertaining film that should delight fans of the series as well as sports films in general and was one of the most enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/23/creed/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Angry Men (1957) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 12 Angry Men starts with our jury being taken to the jury room to make their verdict. Early conversations discuss the idea that the case being cut and dry, but when the first vote goes up only eleven men pick guilty while one man stands up and votes not guilty. He wants to discuss the case before making it quick decision on whether to send the accused the death row.
As the 12 men discuss the case the solo juror that stood up against the guilty verdict slowly starts to talk the rest of the jury into looking at the facts of the case and slowly starts to turn the jury.
12 Angry Men is one of the simplest stories you will ever see, it also takes a fresh turn on a trial film. On paper this could sound very boring, and it would be hard to talk anyone out of that, but once you watch this you will not be able t look away. When you look at what this film achieves you will bee impressed too a new level and even with this film being nearly 60 years old it hasn’t dated a single bit. (10/10)
Actor Review
Full Cast: 12 Angry Men only uses the 12 actors and I don’t think it would be fair to judge each individual performance because this could easily be the best ensemble cast of all time, each character has their different background and opinion on what is the outcome of the case. Every single cast member does a brilliant job showing just how intense being stuck on a jury can be.cast
Director Review: Sidney Lumet – Sidney gives us one of the greatest films ever put onto film, end of discussion. (10/10)
Crime: 12 Angry Men shows the 12 juror discussing a criminal case while making final verdict, this is a great insight into how they would have got to the final out come. (10/10)
Drama: 12 Angry Men gets top marks for this brilliant piece of work. (10/10)
Settings: 12 Angry Men uses just the jury room for the whole setting giving us an insight to just the conversation between the jurors. (10/10)
Suggestion: 12 Angry Men is a must watch for all the film fans out there I do still think casual film fans might find it not their cup of tea. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are all brilliant.
Worst Part: No, isn’t one.
Believability: While I have been on a jury and understand how the discussion take place this cold very well be how intense it gets in there. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for 3 Oscars
Budget: $350,000
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: They have twelve scraps of paper… Twelve chances to kill!
Overall: One of the greatest films you will ever see.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/08/25/12-angry-men-1957/
As the 12 men discuss the case the solo juror that stood up against the guilty verdict slowly starts to talk the rest of the jury into looking at the facts of the case and slowly starts to turn the jury.
12 Angry Men is one of the simplest stories you will ever see, it also takes a fresh turn on a trial film. On paper this could sound very boring, and it would be hard to talk anyone out of that, but once you watch this you will not be able t look away. When you look at what this film achieves you will bee impressed too a new level and even with this film being nearly 60 years old it hasn’t dated a single bit. (10/10)
Actor Review
Full Cast: 12 Angry Men only uses the 12 actors and I don’t think it would be fair to judge each individual performance because this could easily be the best ensemble cast of all time, each character has their different background and opinion on what is the outcome of the case. Every single cast member does a brilliant job showing just how intense being stuck on a jury can be.cast
Director Review: Sidney Lumet – Sidney gives us one of the greatest films ever put onto film, end of discussion. (10/10)
Crime: 12 Angry Men shows the 12 juror discussing a criminal case while making final verdict, this is a great insight into how they would have got to the final out come. (10/10)
Drama: 12 Angry Men gets top marks for this brilliant piece of work. (10/10)
Settings: 12 Angry Men uses just the jury room for the whole setting giving us an insight to just the conversation between the jurors. (10/10)
Suggestion: 12 Angry Men is a must watch for all the film fans out there I do still think casual film fans might find it not their cup of tea. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are all brilliant.
Worst Part: No, isn’t one.
Believability: While I have been on a jury and understand how the discussion take place this cold very well be how intense it gets in there. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for 3 Oscars
Budget: $350,000
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: They have twelve scraps of paper… Twelve chances to kill!
Overall: One of the greatest films you will ever see.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/08/25/12-angry-men-1957/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rec 3: Genesis (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: We start by seeing friends and family coming together for the wedding of our two leads Clara and Koldo. The wedding goes perfectly but as they after party continues one of the guests starts coming off sick and the quarantine team turn up. One an infected guest starts to spread the virus all hell lets loose and we have to follow our groom and a few friends as they try to find safety and watch how he has to find his bride. All this while the bride tries to escape but refuses to leave without her groom.
With the first two in the series being set in the same building it is nice to see something different and with the wedding we get a one night chaos idea. It has the basic escape from the zombie like creatures that we have seen before with the self-sacrifice but lacks the unique kills. It ends up turning into a romantic escape as the two want to find each other and end up getting all their friends and family killed. It is very basic but does what you ask it too. (6/10)
Actor Review
Leticia Dolera: Clara bride who escapes with a priest and a few friends but once she releases her groom is not out she wants to go back and armed with chainsaw she goes back for him. Leticia gives a good performance. (7/10)
Diego Martin: Koldo groom who escapes and tries to save the people he is with before going back in his armour to save his bride. Diego gives a good performance. (7/10)
Support Cast: Friends and family back up the support cast and end up becoming victims while our heroes try to escape.
Director Review: Paco Plaza – Paco makes a solid bloody zombie film that has some good kills but lacks what made the first one special. (5/10)
Horror: Never really reaches the levels of the first ones. (3/10)
Settings: Fresh setting for the series works because it shows how one of the greatest moments of a couple’s life could turn into the biggest nightmare in a matter of moments. (8/10)
Special Effects: Great effects used for the kills and zombies images. (9/10)
Suggestion: This is one for the horror fans to try, it is bloodier that the first too but lacks the suspense they had. (Try It)
Best Part: Chainsaw time
Worst Part: No suspense
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: There is a fourth in the series.
Opening Credits Rating: We get to see photos of the two leads as they grow up until they are about to get married. (7/10)
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 20 Minutes
Tagline: You may now kiss the bride
Overall: That moment when zombies crash your wedding
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/05/rec-3-genesis-2012/
With the first two in the series being set in the same building it is nice to see something different and with the wedding we get a one night chaos idea. It has the basic escape from the zombie like creatures that we have seen before with the self-sacrifice but lacks the unique kills. It ends up turning into a romantic escape as the two want to find each other and end up getting all their friends and family killed. It is very basic but does what you ask it too. (6/10)
Actor Review
Leticia Dolera: Clara bride who escapes with a priest and a few friends but once she releases her groom is not out she wants to go back and armed with chainsaw she goes back for him. Leticia gives a good performance. (7/10)
Diego Martin: Koldo groom who escapes and tries to save the people he is with before going back in his armour to save his bride. Diego gives a good performance. (7/10)
Support Cast: Friends and family back up the support cast and end up becoming victims while our heroes try to escape.
Director Review: Paco Plaza – Paco makes a solid bloody zombie film that has some good kills but lacks what made the first one special. (5/10)
Horror: Never really reaches the levels of the first ones. (3/10)
Settings: Fresh setting for the series works because it shows how one of the greatest moments of a couple’s life could turn into the biggest nightmare in a matter of moments. (8/10)
Special Effects: Great effects used for the kills and zombies images. (9/10)
Suggestion: This is one for the horror fans to try, it is bloodier that the first too but lacks the suspense they had. (Try It)
Best Part: Chainsaw time
Worst Part: No suspense
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: There is a fourth in the series.
Opening Credits Rating: We get to see photos of the two leads as they grow up until they are about to get married. (7/10)
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 20 Minutes
Tagline: You may now kiss the bride
Overall: That moment when zombies crash your wedding
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/05/rec-3-genesis-2012/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Thinking Clint Eastwood is a great actor is sadly not enough to get you through this film.
We open with what honestly reminded me of something you might have seen in Last Of The Summer Wine but with a tinge of melancholy. Those were actual things I wrote down in the screening, it's not often that I can nail my feelings about things like that the instant I see them.
There's some solid acting from some of the support cast. Ignacio Serricchio (amazing in Bones), Robert LaSardo (pops up in lots of different shows and films I watch), Michael Peña
(aaaaahhhh, why didn't he get more screen time?) and Laurence Fishburne (again, probably didn't get enough screen time) gave their best with the limited moments they had. Bradley Cooper managed to eek out some more lines luckily and I loved the interactions between him and Eastwood.
Eastwood himself played the dawdling old man very well, at this point you have to assume that some of that comes naturally rather than from his acting talent. He managed to get himself a choice role with lots of lovely semi-clad ladies in it that's for sure.
After seeing this I'm wondering if it could have benefited from a shift in focus. The family set up at the beginning was a bit drawn out and could easily have lost a lot of it's run time. Had they moved those minutes over to the police/DEA side and made it more crime than drama I think it might have given it a little injection of pace.
The family angle was the main drag for me, it felt much longer than needed but beyond that the acting was the weakest overall. Coming in right at the bottom was Dianne Wiest. I've been thinking about it trying to work out why I didn't like her part as Mary. Sometimes the characters themselves are unlikeable, sometimes it's a poor script, but I think it was just the way she played it. I can think of a couple of other actresses who in the same part could have struck the right note.
In the end I think there was a lot of potential missed, it felt like it spread itself a little too far into the drama side. Some of the bits are a little crazy but get away with being believable... except when they try to make me believe that an octogenarian can work out how to use a smart phone.
What you should do
I probably would say not to bother, there are a lot of other films out there that have a lot more excitement to them.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd like to leave mt keys in the glove compartment of my car and come back to a stash of cash. Alas I think I'd come back to a missing car.
We open with what honestly reminded me of something you might have seen in Last Of The Summer Wine but with a tinge of melancholy. Those were actual things I wrote down in the screening, it's not often that I can nail my feelings about things like that the instant I see them.
There's some solid acting from some of the support cast. Ignacio Serricchio (amazing in Bones), Robert LaSardo (pops up in lots of different shows and films I watch), Michael Peña
(aaaaahhhh, why didn't he get more screen time?) and Laurence Fishburne (again, probably didn't get enough screen time) gave their best with the limited moments they had. Bradley Cooper managed to eek out some more lines luckily and I loved the interactions between him and Eastwood.
Eastwood himself played the dawdling old man very well, at this point you have to assume that some of that comes naturally rather than from his acting talent. He managed to get himself a choice role with lots of lovely semi-clad ladies in it that's for sure.
After seeing this I'm wondering if it could have benefited from a shift in focus. The family set up at the beginning was a bit drawn out and could easily have lost a lot of it's run time. Had they moved those minutes over to the police/DEA side and made it more crime than drama I think it might have given it a little injection of pace.
The family angle was the main drag for me, it felt much longer than needed but beyond that the acting was the weakest overall. Coming in right at the bottom was Dianne Wiest. I've been thinking about it trying to work out why I didn't like her part as Mary. Sometimes the characters themselves are unlikeable, sometimes it's a poor script, but I think it was just the way she played it. I can think of a couple of other actresses who in the same part could have struck the right note.
In the end I think there was a lot of potential missed, it felt like it spread itself a little too far into the drama side. Some of the bits are a little crazy but get away with being believable... except when they try to make me believe that an octogenarian can work out how to use a smart phone.
What you should do
I probably would say not to bother, there are a lot of other films out there that have a lot more excitement to them.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd like to leave mt keys in the glove compartment of my car and come back to a stash of cash. Alas I think I'd come back to a missing car.
Darren (64 KP) rated Midnight Run (1988) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
An under-rated Masterpiece
Midnight Run is an Action/Comedy masterpiece.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Published in 1880, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is considered one of the most influential Christian books of the nineteenth century. The success of the novel led to film adaptations, most notably the 1955 academy award winning version of the film string Charlton Heston. Fast forward to 2016 and MGM and Paramount Pictures hope to see continue the success of this proven story with their newest film adaptation Ben-Hur.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
It was difficult to avoid trailers for James Gunn’s Brightburn, and as a result it was difficult to avoid my excitement too. I had very much been looking forward to this one, as I’m always interested in characters that use their powers for evil instead of good.
In a similar vein to Josh Trank’s Chronicle, the film follows a teenager who starts to realise he’s got special abilities, but ends up having very dark intentions. For Brightburn, though, it’s because Brandon Bryer (Jackson A Dunn) is not of this world, and he was adopted by Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) who desperately tried to hide the truth from him.
Jackson A. Dunn is undoubtedly the star of the show here, and a young actor that I’m incredibly impressed with. His emotional range is really fantastic, and the way he portrays genuine psychopathic behaviour feels almost too real. I did find myself lost in his performance, and scared of him too. I really hope to see him on another project in the near future.
Elizabeth Banks and David Denman shared great chemistry too, with conflicting opinions as Brandon starts to uncover who he really is. In a way its cliched, a couple fail to conceive and a child (or ‘blessing’ as Tori often calls it) falls to earth, but it takes that trope and turns it into something monstrous that tears the family apart. There’s nothing angelic about this kid.
The biggest downside to Brightburn for me, is that the trailer gave away all the film’s best moments. I could predict what was going to happen, and there were no real surprises for me. The scenes the trailer missed out were disappointingly average, and nothing special. It could’ve benefited from teasing the audience more.
There is also one scene in particular that has very bad special effects, and ruined the emotion I was supposed to be feeling during it. I wish they had decided to do something more subtly brutal here, as that would’ve upped the emotional factor during this crucial moment.
It’s even more disappointing because I did enjoy certain effects, and the use of the POV camera on victims to make it more disturbingly intimate. I was also impressed with the level of gore and the creativeness of the murders, and how it helped to shape Brandon’s character development throughout.
The film had the potential to be more well polished, but sadly repeatedly opted for big and bold effects that were too jarring for me as a viewer. Having said that, the strength of Brandon’s character, the dynamics between the family, and the strength of one or two scenes helped to redeem the film a bit.
It’s entertaining to watch on the big screen with some effective scares and some gory moments that aren’t for those with a weak stomach. I’m happy I spent an evening watching it, but I can’t say I’ll be rushing to see it again.
In a similar vein to Josh Trank’s Chronicle, the film follows a teenager who starts to realise he’s got special abilities, but ends up having very dark intentions. For Brightburn, though, it’s because Brandon Bryer (Jackson A Dunn) is not of this world, and he was adopted by Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) who desperately tried to hide the truth from him.
Jackson A. Dunn is undoubtedly the star of the show here, and a young actor that I’m incredibly impressed with. His emotional range is really fantastic, and the way he portrays genuine psychopathic behaviour feels almost too real. I did find myself lost in his performance, and scared of him too. I really hope to see him on another project in the near future.
Elizabeth Banks and David Denman shared great chemistry too, with conflicting opinions as Brandon starts to uncover who he really is. In a way its cliched, a couple fail to conceive and a child (or ‘blessing’ as Tori often calls it) falls to earth, but it takes that trope and turns it into something monstrous that tears the family apart. There’s nothing angelic about this kid.
The biggest downside to Brightburn for me, is that the trailer gave away all the film’s best moments. I could predict what was going to happen, and there were no real surprises for me. The scenes the trailer missed out were disappointingly average, and nothing special. It could’ve benefited from teasing the audience more.
There is also one scene in particular that has very bad special effects, and ruined the emotion I was supposed to be feeling during it. I wish they had decided to do something more subtly brutal here, as that would’ve upped the emotional factor during this crucial moment.
It’s even more disappointing because I did enjoy certain effects, and the use of the POV camera on victims to make it more disturbingly intimate. I was also impressed with the level of gore and the creativeness of the murders, and how it helped to shape Brandon’s character development throughout.
The film had the potential to be more well polished, but sadly repeatedly opted for big and bold effects that were too jarring for me as a viewer. Having said that, the strength of Brandon’s character, the dynamics between the family, and the strength of one or two scenes helped to redeem the film a bit.
It’s entertaining to watch on the big screen with some effective scares and some gory moments that aren’t for those with a weak stomach. I’m happy I spent an evening watching it, but I can’t say I’ll be rushing to see it again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Teen Spirit (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Seventeen year old Violet (Elle Fanning) loves to sing. She spends every free moment listening to her iPod or singing. But since her father left Violet and her mother alone, Marla (Agnieszka Grochowska), on a small farm on Isle of Wight, she has very little free time. Each morning, she feeds and cares for the animals on the farm before she heads to school. After school and every weekend she waits tables. Each night secretly she heads to a bar to sing for extra money to help save the farm, but also to have a chance to sing. When she sees a billboard advertising Teen Spirit, a singing competition show, she sees an opportunity to do the one thing that brings her joy and also help get her a better life. The only problem is that she will have to do it without her mother finding out. Since she is under eighteen she has to convince someone to act as her guardian. She asks an old drunk at the bar, Vlad (Zlatko Buric), who loves her singing to go with her. She soon finds out that the disheveled looking old Vlad used to be a famous opera singer. When she finds out she makes it to the second round Vlad helps convince her mother that she should continue chasing her dream with his help. Even though Violet is going against much more experienced and refined competition she is focus on continuing to chase her dream and make it to the Finals in London.
Teen Spirit is the directorial debut for Max Minghella who also wrote the film (written also The 9th Life of Louis Drax, actor in TVs The Handmaid’s Tale). The story was familiar, a small town girl with big dreams and talent trying to overcome overwhelming odds to accomplish a goal. But it is told in a unique way and I would call it a fresh take on the “Cinderella” story. The visuals were unique and interesting. Most of the singing scenes, and not just Violet, were up close or focused on the singer with the background out of focus. It was an original and interesting way to visually tell the story. Elle Fanning does a good job as the protagonist. She is both bold and vulnerable in the film. Zlatko Buric did a marvelous job and brought some much needed light moments in an overall darker film. I thought the music was good but maybe not my cup of tea.
I thought that overall this was an enjoyable film. Not really something I would generally seek out to watch but was originally made and had interesting characters. It is the same old story though and minus some originality in how it gets through the story the outcome is predictable. My wife enjoyed it a little more than I did so it would be a good date movie. Personally worth a stream or rental but not really theater prices.
Teen Spirit is the directorial debut for Max Minghella who also wrote the film (written also The 9th Life of Louis Drax, actor in TVs The Handmaid’s Tale). The story was familiar, a small town girl with big dreams and talent trying to overcome overwhelming odds to accomplish a goal. But it is told in a unique way and I would call it a fresh take on the “Cinderella” story. The visuals were unique and interesting. Most of the singing scenes, and not just Violet, were up close or focused on the singer with the background out of focus. It was an original and interesting way to visually tell the story. Elle Fanning does a good job as the protagonist. She is both bold and vulnerable in the film. Zlatko Buric did a marvelous job and brought some much needed light moments in an overall darker film. I thought the music was good but maybe not my cup of tea.
I thought that overall this was an enjoyable film. Not really something I would generally seek out to watch but was originally made and had interesting characters. It is the same old story though and minus some originality in how it gets through the story the outcome is predictable. My wife enjoyed it a little more than I did so it would be a good date movie. Personally worth a stream or rental but not really theater prices.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Well paced (1 more)
Good characters
Third times a charm
I am not terribly well versed in Guy Ritchie films, however "Snatch" is one of my favorite films. I went into this with no expectations, and without even knowing the basic plot, I was greated with a wonderful experience.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)