Search
Search results
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 (980 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 (980 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)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
When I first heard about the Stephen King book called Gerald’s Game I was about 16 years old, and it scared the shit out of me! Just the concept and the idea of it happening to you. So I never read the book. In my mind, I had imagined the worst already and did not want to go there.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
JT (287 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Does making a film based on a true story make it any more endearing to the Oscar big wigs? Possibly, but one thing is for sure, Ben Affleck’s third film Argo is an outstanding piece of film making with exceptional attention to detail and sense of realism.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.