Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sybu for Kodi and XBMC
Entertainment and Music
App
Sybu Remote Control for Kodi Media Centre http://kodi.tv and XBMC •Remote Control Kodi media...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Midway (2019) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
So bad...it's bad
There are times when you watch a film and you can just hear the conference room discussion that happened back at the studio before getting it green-lit...
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Mike V: Skateboard Party Lite
Games and Sports
App
Play with your friends using the multiplayer mode, complete achievements, gain experience and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022
I don't like to go into a film with a negative impression... but... #NotMyPoirot #SlashTheStash.
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
The Nantucket Beachfront Inn (Sconset Beach #1)
Book
She's 54, broken-hearted, and starting over.... High-powered New York attorney Ava Flynn finds...
Contemporary Women's Fiction
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Marvels (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2023
Fun. Lightweight Romp
If you, like many others, have opted out of the past few Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and are, likewise, suffering from “SuperHero” fatigue but are now looking for a re-entry into the MCU, then THE MARVELS is the film for you, for unlike some previous MCU films, it does not take much in the way of previous knowledge to get into the flow of this (somewhat) lightweight, fun action comic-book flick.
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) in Movies
Oct 10, 2022
Touched Me In The End
The new Apple TV+ original film THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER is being advertised as kind of a “wacky buddy comedy” with a bunch of New York slackers looking for beer in Viet Nam.
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?