Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: With the story of a sceptic investigating paranormal events but then ends up stuck in these paranormal events he so very much doesn’t believe in, is a very clichéd story. This has most of this and adds in that he is a writer with a dark past involving loss you know where this is going. Mixing it all together we get the idea of redemption for the mistakes we may have done in life. One weak point of this film is that there are two endings that paint a very different picture of the events that happen in the film, I personally prefer the Director’s Cut as I find it has more answer than the Theatrical Cut. (8/10)
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftermath 2017 (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftermath starts as construction worker Roman (Schwarzenegger) is looking forward to the arrival of his wife and pregnant daughter from Kiev for Christmas. Making himself extra smart with flowers at hand he arrives at the airport to find the flight delayed but there is no good news, the plane was involved in a tragic accident killing both his wife and daughter.
On the other side of the story flight controller Jake Bonaos (McNairy) leaves his wife and son to arrive at work that very same day, on a night shift where he finds the himself distracted trying to fix a phoneline as two planes collided mid-air, the same flights that had Roman’s family on.
Both men’s lives are completely shattered, Roman broken, alone and spending days and nights at the cemetery. While Jake is branded a murderer by the public finding it impossible to function or being the husband and father he needs to be.
With the airline company waving money in Roman’s face to stop them being sued and Jake on the verge of suicide brings us to one year later where both are still living in the tragedy but both are attempting to move on.
Thoughts on Aftermath
Characters/Performance – Roman is a hard-working construction worker, he has work long hours to make sure his family can move to live with him in America, when he loses them his life is shattered but all he wants is an apologise not the airlines money. Jake is a flight controller who makes an honest mistake that cost the lives of everyone on the flights, his life is ruined, he loses his family, his job and must change his name and start again, living the rest of his life with regret.
Performance wise, Schwarzenegger is brilliant in this role where is he no action hero, he is an everyday man that loses everything, this is by far one of his best acting performances of his career. Scoot McNairy is also fantastic in this role showing just how capable of an actor he is.
Story – The story is based on a real incident that followed a mid-air collision but turned into an American story for it to unfold in. This story is very powerful because you are now left to wonder just what would happen if you were in either of these men’s shoes. The story also isn’t just a revenge film it follows these two men trying to rebuild their lives after what happened and mostly just wanting a human response from somebody involved.
Thriller – From the moment this film starts you are left to wonder from the edge of your seat to where this film will go.
Settings – The settings used through the film focus on making both our main characters feel like everyday people whose lives have been ruined by the events which is all you need from the film.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best and most intense slow burning stories you will see this year. The performances are fantastic as well as being one of the most interesting stories out there.
Overall: One of the most powerful stories you will see this year.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/04/10/aftermath-2017/
On the other side of the story flight controller Jake Bonaos (McNairy) leaves his wife and son to arrive at work that very same day, on a night shift where he finds the himself distracted trying to fix a phoneline as two planes collided mid-air, the same flights that had Roman’s family on.
Both men’s lives are completely shattered, Roman broken, alone and spending days and nights at the cemetery. While Jake is branded a murderer by the public finding it impossible to function or being the husband and father he needs to be.
With the airline company waving money in Roman’s face to stop them being sued and Jake on the verge of suicide brings us to one year later where both are still living in the tragedy but both are attempting to move on.
Thoughts on Aftermath
Characters/Performance – Roman is a hard-working construction worker, he has work long hours to make sure his family can move to live with him in America, when he loses them his life is shattered but all he wants is an apologise not the airlines money. Jake is a flight controller who makes an honest mistake that cost the lives of everyone on the flights, his life is ruined, he loses his family, his job and must change his name and start again, living the rest of his life with regret.
Performance wise, Schwarzenegger is brilliant in this role where is he no action hero, he is an everyday man that loses everything, this is by far one of his best acting performances of his career. Scoot McNairy is also fantastic in this role showing just how capable of an actor he is.
Story – The story is based on a real incident that followed a mid-air collision but turned into an American story for it to unfold in. This story is very powerful because you are now left to wonder just what would happen if you were in either of these men’s shoes. The story also isn’t just a revenge film it follows these two men trying to rebuild their lives after what happened and mostly just wanting a human response from somebody involved.
Thriller – From the moment this film starts you are left to wonder from the edge of your seat to where this film will go.
Settings – The settings used through the film focus on making both our main characters feel like everyday people whose lives have been ruined by the events which is all you need from the film.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best and most intense slow burning stories you will see this year. The performances are fantastic as well as being one of the most interesting stories out there.
Overall: One of the most powerful stories you will see this year.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/04/10/aftermath-2017/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Is Lost (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All is Lost starts 1700 Nautical Miles from The Sumatra Straits on the 13th July as Our Man (Redford) believes that all is lost. The film starts out with a bang when sleeping lone sailor is awoken be cargo shipping container floating in the ocean smashing into the side of his ship leaving a massive hole in the side. The breach in the ship leaves our man with no connections for help even if his boat isn’t going down yet. Staying calm our man fixes the hole before fixing the radio knowing he can survive for a time but just how long is the question, mother nature decides to test our man by throwing storms at him but his years of experience are keeping him a float.
All is Lost is such a very simple story of one man trying survive against mother nature. We have to say this is a courage story that shows our hero never panic and use all the tricks he can to make sure he survives as long as he can always hoping for help. We are left guessing whether he will survive or not as we learn tricks that could help us one day, but in the end I do think this is an incredible story but is very slow, I can easily see the casual film fan giving up on this one. There is pretty much no dialogue in the film because our character has no one to talk to or need to explain who he is. I can honestly I would rather watch the fantasy Life of Pi over this because of the extra elements involved. (8/10)
Actor Review
Robert Redford: Our Man is our lone character in the whole film, we learn little about him over than he likes to boat, we know he keeps calm during the panic and knows how to survive and we also get to see his determination to survive. Robert gives a great performance without having to say too much that his action bring us in. (9/10)man
Director Review: J.C. Chandor – J.C gives us a very good drama about surviving that will get the praise from the critics but might not get enough attention from the casual fans. (8/10)
Action: All is Lost has the action scenes when our hero has t take on mother nature, each scene is heart stopping and realistic. (9/10)
Drama: All is Lost brings us a brilliant story about surviving against the odds. (9/10)
Settings: All is Lost can’t be faulted one bit for the settings because the whole film is set in the middle of the ocean giving our hero little to no chance of surviving. (10/10)
Suggestion: All is Lost is one to watch even if it does come off slow in places. (Watch)
Best Part: Redford is brilliant.
Worst Part: Slow in places.
Action Scene Of The Film: Storm turning the boat upside and back up again.
Believability: Events like this happen a lot and while this story is fictional it takes ideas from other stories. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Life of Pi
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Achievement in Sound Editing.
Box Office: $6.25 Million
Budget: $9 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: Never Give Up
Overall: All is Lost is a very good story about survival that keeps everything looking very realistic.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/30/all-is-lost-2013/
All is Lost is such a very simple story of one man trying survive against mother nature. We have to say this is a courage story that shows our hero never panic and use all the tricks he can to make sure he survives as long as he can always hoping for help. We are left guessing whether he will survive or not as we learn tricks that could help us one day, but in the end I do think this is an incredible story but is very slow, I can easily see the casual film fan giving up on this one. There is pretty much no dialogue in the film because our character has no one to talk to or need to explain who he is. I can honestly I would rather watch the fantasy Life of Pi over this because of the extra elements involved. (8/10)
Actor Review
Robert Redford: Our Man is our lone character in the whole film, we learn little about him over than he likes to boat, we know he keeps calm during the panic and knows how to survive and we also get to see his determination to survive. Robert gives a great performance without having to say too much that his action bring us in. (9/10)man
Director Review: J.C. Chandor – J.C gives us a very good drama about surviving that will get the praise from the critics but might not get enough attention from the casual fans. (8/10)
Action: All is Lost has the action scenes when our hero has t take on mother nature, each scene is heart stopping and realistic. (9/10)
Drama: All is Lost brings us a brilliant story about surviving against the odds. (9/10)
Settings: All is Lost can’t be faulted one bit for the settings because the whole film is set in the middle of the ocean giving our hero little to no chance of surviving. (10/10)
Suggestion: All is Lost is one to watch even if it does come off slow in places. (Watch)
Best Part: Redford is brilliant.
Worst Part: Slow in places.
Action Scene Of The Film: Storm turning the boat upside and back up again.
Believability: Events like this happen a lot and while this story is fictional it takes ideas from other stories. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Life of Pi
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Achievement in Sound Editing.
Box Office: $6.25 Million
Budget: $9 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: Never Give Up
Overall: All is Lost is a very good story about survival that keeps everything looking very realistic.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/30/all-is-lost-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: When you have a con artist film you need to be anticipating some twist in the heroes favour. This has that and you are left to figure out how he will pull it off, what happens between is very familiar with the differences between the hero and the guy he has to complete the job for. What is not familiar is that the hero starts to support the guys he is meant to be conning, mix in a love triangle and you do get something more original. The film never tries to take its self too serious which is what makes it good, but in the end you won’t be left thinking I have to watch this again. (7/10)
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hide and Seek (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The mind is a deep a complex organ that science still struggles to fully comprehend, despite the countless hours of research and study that have been expended in unlocking the mysteries contained within.
In the new thriller Hide and Seek, audiences are introduced to Dr. David Callaway (Robert De Niro), a Psychologist who is struggling to help his daughter Emile (Dakota Fanning) after the suicide of her mother. David believes that the best option is to move from New York City to a quite area upstate where he can focus on being a father to his daughter, who has become withdrawn despite intense counseling.
Despite opposition from Emily’s therapist and family friend Katherine (Famke Janssen), David and Emily relocate to a scenic and quite location and hour from the city.
At first everything seems to be going well with the move and David meets an attractive young lady named Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue), who watches over a little girl for another member of her family. Thinking that a friend will snap Emily from her state, David encourages Elizabeth to come to the house.
David is convinced the addition of a friend will encourage Emily to stop talking about an imaginary friend named Charlie who seems to have preoccupied the little girls time. David is convinced that Charlie is a creation of Emily’s psyche that will fade over time especially as she makes friends and copes with the loss of her mother.
Emily instead withdraws even further from people and a series of bizarre and violent events ensue with Emily insisting that Charlie is the reason behind all of them. As David struggles to deal with the ever increasing tension caused by Charlie, he soon becomes caught up in a situation beyond his control.
The setup for the film is good as your mind races with a myriad of possibilities and outcome. Sadly many of my scenarios, and I suspect most of the audience were better and more satisfying then the conclusion of the film. The film quickly degrades into an abundance of absurdities and situations that seem lifted from the Drama 101 textbook as well as a dozen other and better films in the genre.
While the cast does good work with what they have, it is unsatisfying to see talent like Shue and Janssen reduced to minor supporting characters when they could have brought so much more to the film. Worse yet is De Niro seems to be going through the motions as this brilliant and gifted actor is not given any material that will challenge him and let his brilliant method acting shine.
For the first half of the film it is a mostly enjoyable and intriguing film that does hold your attention. However once the so called surprises of the film are revealed and the film moves towards it’s conclusion, you cant help but think that you have been cheated and deserved a much better payoff for sitting through the first hour of the film. Days after seeing it, I am still stunned at how badly the film ended and how such a good premise and talented cast were horribly wasted on a film that had surprisingly no scares or tension as the audience at my press screening sat largely in silence throughout the film.
My advice, save this for a rental as it is at best, a movie of the week quality film.
In the new thriller Hide and Seek, audiences are introduced to Dr. David Callaway (Robert De Niro), a Psychologist who is struggling to help his daughter Emile (Dakota Fanning) after the suicide of her mother. David believes that the best option is to move from New York City to a quite area upstate where he can focus on being a father to his daughter, who has become withdrawn despite intense counseling.
Despite opposition from Emily’s therapist and family friend Katherine (Famke Janssen), David and Emily relocate to a scenic and quite location and hour from the city.
At first everything seems to be going well with the move and David meets an attractive young lady named Elizabeth (Elisabeth Shue), who watches over a little girl for another member of her family. Thinking that a friend will snap Emily from her state, David encourages Elizabeth to come to the house.
David is convinced the addition of a friend will encourage Emily to stop talking about an imaginary friend named Charlie who seems to have preoccupied the little girls time. David is convinced that Charlie is a creation of Emily’s psyche that will fade over time especially as she makes friends and copes with the loss of her mother.
Emily instead withdraws even further from people and a series of bizarre and violent events ensue with Emily insisting that Charlie is the reason behind all of them. As David struggles to deal with the ever increasing tension caused by Charlie, he soon becomes caught up in a situation beyond his control.
The setup for the film is good as your mind races with a myriad of possibilities and outcome. Sadly many of my scenarios, and I suspect most of the audience were better and more satisfying then the conclusion of the film. The film quickly degrades into an abundance of absurdities and situations that seem lifted from the Drama 101 textbook as well as a dozen other and better films in the genre.
While the cast does good work with what they have, it is unsatisfying to see talent like Shue and Janssen reduced to minor supporting characters when they could have brought so much more to the film. Worse yet is De Niro seems to be going through the motions as this brilliant and gifted actor is not given any material that will challenge him and let his brilliant method acting shine.
For the first half of the film it is a mostly enjoyable and intriguing film that does hold your attention. However once the so called surprises of the film are revealed and the film moves towards it’s conclusion, you cant help but think that you have been cheated and deserved a much better payoff for sitting through the first hour of the film. Days after seeing it, I am still stunned at how badly the film ended and how such a good premise and talented cast were horribly wasted on a film that had surprisingly no scares or tension as the audience at my press screening sat largely in silence throughout the film.
My advice, save this for a rental as it is at best, a movie of the week quality film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell) is a guy who has found his place in the world. Andy has a small but comfortable apartment that is stocked with all manner of high tech electronics, as well as an impressive collection of valuable collectables.
Andy has a comfortable if not dynamic job managing inventory for a local electronics store as well as a group of co-workers who include Andy in their conversations.
Andy’s life takes an unexpected turn when it is revealed at an after hours poker game that he has never been with a woman in a physical way, making him a 40 year old virgin.
Shocked and amused, Andy’s co-workers make it their personal quest to get Andy fixed up and on with his life. Andy for the most part is not overly enthused as his past failures in dating and heavy petting have all ended in disaster causing him to forgo pursuing sex.
Andy takes this all in stride even when it results in some hilarious and often painful experiences ranging from chest waxing, to drunken woman intent on making Andy their pleasure toy. As the experiences go from one bizarre encounter after another, Andy becomes even more confused, especially when his co-workers continue to offer advice that seems less than practical.
During this time, Andy meets Trish (Catherine Keener), who works at a business across from the shop. Andy is unsure how to handle her openness but when persuaded, he realizes that she may indeed like him, and now it is time to put what he has been told into effect.
Playing it cool, Andy does not call right away, but after even more outrageous situations arise, Andy eventually calls Trish and they go out. Things go very well, that is until Andy is faced with situations he has never encountered and all of his life experiences have prepared him for what is to come next.
Directed by Judd Apatow, The 40 Year Old Virgin, is a comic triumph that is consistently funny throughout. Carell is fantastic as he shows that he is a true comic talent that has arrived after his scene stealing performances in “Bruce Almighty”, and “Anchorman”.
The film is very crude and raunchy, but unlike the recent Deuce Bigalow film, there is a sincerity and charm about the films that puts the debauchery in context. This is not a film that throws gross situations at you for shock value, they are included as a natural part of the story and as part of the characters lives.
While some may balk at this, it is important to remember that in a film that deals with single men and sex, in many ways this film could actually be seen as restrained in how the characters discuss and deal with the topics and situations.
That being said, the film is a true work of genius and should launch Carell as the next great comic actor. His ability to blend physical and subtle comedy is amazing as his ability to portray Andy as a sympathetic and understandable character is truly amazing. Talent such as his only comes along once in a great while and thankfully the 42 year old Carell is finally getting a chance to shine. If you love to laugh and do not mind crude humor, do not miss this film.
Andy has a comfortable if not dynamic job managing inventory for a local electronics store as well as a group of co-workers who include Andy in their conversations.
Andy’s life takes an unexpected turn when it is revealed at an after hours poker game that he has never been with a woman in a physical way, making him a 40 year old virgin.
Shocked and amused, Andy’s co-workers make it their personal quest to get Andy fixed up and on with his life. Andy for the most part is not overly enthused as his past failures in dating and heavy petting have all ended in disaster causing him to forgo pursuing sex.
Andy takes this all in stride even when it results in some hilarious and often painful experiences ranging from chest waxing, to drunken woman intent on making Andy their pleasure toy. As the experiences go from one bizarre encounter after another, Andy becomes even more confused, especially when his co-workers continue to offer advice that seems less than practical.
During this time, Andy meets Trish (Catherine Keener), who works at a business across from the shop. Andy is unsure how to handle her openness but when persuaded, he realizes that she may indeed like him, and now it is time to put what he has been told into effect.
Playing it cool, Andy does not call right away, but after even more outrageous situations arise, Andy eventually calls Trish and they go out. Things go very well, that is until Andy is faced with situations he has never encountered and all of his life experiences have prepared him for what is to come next.
Directed by Judd Apatow, The 40 Year Old Virgin, is a comic triumph that is consistently funny throughout. Carell is fantastic as he shows that he is a true comic talent that has arrived after his scene stealing performances in “Bruce Almighty”, and “Anchorman”.
The film is very crude and raunchy, but unlike the recent Deuce Bigalow film, there is a sincerity and charm about the films that puts the debauchery in context. This is not a film that throws gross situations at you for shock value, they are included as a natural part of the story and as part of the characters lives.
While some may balk at this, it is important to remember that in a film that deals with single men and sex, in many ways this film could actually be seen as restrained in how the characters discuss and deal with the topics and situations.
That being said, the film is a true work of genius and should launch Carell as the next great comic actor. His ability to blend physical and subtle comedy is amazing as his ability to portray Andy as a sympathetic and understandable character is truly amazing. Talent such as his only comes along once in a great while and thankfully the 42 year old Carell is finally getting a chance to shine. If you love to laugh and do not mind crude humor, do not miss this film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Tolkien shows us a snapshot of the author's younger years from orphan to student, from soldier to scholar. I don't know much about his history but I'm familiar with the estate and I was surprised that this went through without their blessing. Not knowing the background I can't say how much is true and how much is artistic license, and sadly in this instance, I'm really not too bothered about finding out. Other biopics have left me with a desire to find out more about the subject matter but this left me rather indifferent about it.
It's not a wildly exciting life story that's captured in the film, what I found more compelling was the way that the creative process was depicted. The way they used visuals to connect everything in his life to his stories was beautifully done. The war scenes are stunning in their simplicity, seeing the colours against the stark backgrounds was incredible and I love how they managed to weave his visions into them. The mist effect was particularly well done.
I love the idea that Tolkien saw all these ideas in what most people would dismiss as life or a trick of the light. At the beginning of the film we see his mother telling the brother a story with the use of a zoetrope. (I'm not sure it's technically a zoetrope, do let me know what it is if I'm wrong.) The way they managed to create the feeling of life in those projections was mesmerising.
I'm quite aware that I haven't mentioned a single member of the cast yet. To be honest, I think I was so engrossed in the visuals that the rest of it was just kind of... there.
I found it difficult to keep track of who was who in his fellowship. I couldn't have told you their names or their individual niches. In fact, near the end I realised I'd got one of their names wrong the entire way through my notes.
Nicholas Hoult isn't an actor I'm particularly excited for in films, he is a consistent performer but I don't think I've seen anything that's wowed me. As Tolkien thought he did bring some surprisingly emotional elements... I definitely hadn't expected to cry at this screening. If I'd have been Edith in the moment where she asks him to tell her a story I'd have fallen in love with him on the spot, it had me leaning in intrigued to see him working everything out.
Visually, the movie is stunning and the feeling it creates is perfect, but everything else in the film felt very non-descript, and a lot of it seemed like it just had a place to make you link it to his writings. Tolkien is more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane than a biopic.
What you should do
The visuals on the big screen were amazing, but I don't think there's enough going on in the rest of the film to warrant a trip to the cinema for it. Try and catch it when it's available on home release though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to create a wall of ideas without getting annoyed that nothing was lined up straight.
It's not a wildly exciting life story that's captured in the film, what I found more compelling was the way that the creative process was depicted. The way they used visuals to connect everything in his life to his stories was beautifully done. The war scenes are stunning in their simplicity, seeing the colours against the stark backgrounds was incredible and I love how they managed to weave his visions into them. The mist effect was particularly well done.
I love the idea that Tolkien saw all these ideas in what most people would dismiss as life or a trick of the light. At the beginning of the film we see his mother telling the brother a story with the use of a zoetrope. (I'm not sure it's technically a zoetrope, do let me know what it is if I'm wrong.) The way they managed to create the feeling of life in those projections was mesmerising.
I'm quite aware that I haven't mentioned a single member of the cast yet. To be honest, I think I was so engrossed in the visuals that the rest of it was just kind of... there.
I found it difficult to keep track of who was who in his fellowship. I couldn't have told you their names or their individual niches. In fact, near the end I realised I'd got one of their names wrong the entire way through my notes.
Nicholas Hoult isn't an actor I'm particularly excited for in films, he is a consistent performer but I don't think I've seen anything that's wowed me. As Tolkien thought he did bring some surprisingly emotional elements... I definitely hadn't expected to cry at this screening. If I'd have been Edith in the moment where she asks him to tell her a story I'd have fallen in love with him on the spot, it had me leaning in intrigued to see him working everything out.
Visually, the movie is stunning and the feeling it creates is perfect, but everything else in the film felt very non-descript, and a lot of it seemed like it just had a place to make you link it to his writings. Tolkien is more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane than a biopic.
What you should do
The visuals on the big screen were amazing, but I don't think there's enough going on in the rest of the film to warrant a trip to the cinema for it. Try and catch it when it's available on home release though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to create a wall of ideas without getting annoyed that nothing was lined up straight.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)