Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Edge of Darkness (2010) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Edge of Darkness starts when Craven (Gibson) get to spend his daughter Emma (Novakovic) only for an unknown gunman killing her on his doorstep, Craven being a homicide detective isn’t allowed to investigate the case for legal reasons, so he decides to go against the law in his search for the murderer.
The early signs make it looks like Craven himself was the target, but it soon comes to light that it might be Emma’s work for a government company run by Jack Bennett (Huston) that might have made her the target and the deeper he digs the more he learns about his daughter.
Thoughts on Edge of Darkness
Characters – Craven is a respect homicide detective, everyone in the force knows just how capable of solving a murder he can be, but when his own daughter is murdered, he starts to go against the law to figure out who and why she was murdered. He will not stop at anything to locate the truth and take out the people that murdered his daughter. Jedburgh is an English man that will help Craven fill in the gaps, while trying to keep him away from the answers, he has been hired to make sure the investment stays safe, without building up a body count. Jack Bennett runs the company that Emma works for, he knows how to answer questions to keep the press happy, while keeping the shady operations under wraps. Emma is the daughter that Craven is delighted to spend time with once again, only she gets murdered and it is her life before this meeting that we get to see her in.
Performances – Mel Gibson might well have had his problems in Hollywood, but when it comes to crime thrillers, he is in his element always shining in these roles without ever looking out of place, and demanding the screen whenever he steps on screen. Ray Winstone is great in his role, which only seems to be around for the calmer or criminal sides of the film. Danny Huston is an actor that can play a villain in his sleep and this is no different, he brings the smug figure to life here. Bojana Novakovic is great in her smaller role which doesn’t need to get much more screen time to add to the story.
Story – The story here follows a homicide detective that starts to investigate the murder of his daughter only to find himself in the middle of a much bigger conspiracy that puts his own life in danger. This story starts off looking like it is going to be a revenge like movie because of how the first murder happens only to become a big conspiracy movie that offers up plenty of miss-direction as we lead to the truth. Any story that can keep you guessing and let try to figure out the ending yourself is an entertaining watch, with the outcome not even needing to be spoon fed to us either. This might well be a remake of a television show, but it plays into the modern ideas and works with how the conspiracy could be relevant for today’s climate.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film starts by just looking like a murder, it soon dives into cover ups, conspiracy and secret groups which shows how the government might go about trying to cover up a secret. The mystery in the film comes from just how the conspiracy keeps managing to unfold to expose more truth about what Emma was involved in.
Settings – The film uses the Boston setting to show how many crimes have been committed in this stricter state which does show us just how big of a conspiracy needs covering up.
Scene of the Movie – Riverside meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see more of Jedburgh.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully intense crime thriller that does keep you guessing throughout the film, we get strong performance throughout and a story that has been modernized without looking out of place.
Overall: Hugely entertaining crime thriller.
The early signs make it looks like Craven himself was the target, but it soon comes to light that it might be Emma’s work for a government company run by Jack Bennett (Huston) that might have made her the target and the deeper he digs the more he learns about his daughter.
Thoughts on Edge of Darkness
Characters – Craven is a respect homicide detective, everyone in the force knows just how capable of solving a murder he can be, but when his own daughter is murdered, he starts to go against the law to figure out who and why she was murdered. He will not stop at anything to locate the truth and take out the people that murdered his daughter. Jedburgh is an English man that will help Craven fill in the gaps, while trying to keep him away from the answers, he has been hired to make sure the investment stays safe, without building up a body count. Jack Bennett runs the company that Emma works for, he knows how to answer questions to keep the press happy, while keeping the shady operations under wraps. Emma is the daughter that Craven is delighted to spend time with once again, only she gets murdered and it is her life before this meeting that we get to see her in.
Performances – Mel Gibson might well have had his problems in Hollywood, but when it comes to crime thrillers, he is in his element always shining in these roles without ever looking out of place, and demanding the screen whenever he steps on screen. Ray Winstone is great in his role, which only seems to be around for the calmer or criminal sides of the film. Danny Huston is an actor that can play a villain in his sleep and this is no different, he brings the smug figure to life here. Bojana Novakovic is great in her smaller role which doesn’t need to get much more screen time to add to the story.
Story – The story here follows a homicide detective that starts to investigate the murder of his daughter only to find himself in the middle of a much bigger conspiracy that puts his own life in danger. This story starts off looking like it is going to be a revenge like movie because of how the first murder happens only to become a big conspiracy movie that offers up plenty of miss-direction as we lead to the truth. Any story that can keep you guessing and let try to figure out the ending yourself is an entertaining watch, with the outcome not even needing to be spoon fed to us either. This might well be a remake of a television show, but it plays into the modern ideas and works with how the conspiracy could be relevant for today’s climate.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film starts by just looking like a murder, it soon dives into cover ups, conspiracy and secret groups which shows how the government might go about trying to cover up a secret. The mystery in the film comes from just how the conspiracy keeps managing to unfold to expose more truth about what Emma was involved in.
Settings – The film uses the Boston setting to show how many crimes have been committed in this stricter state which does show us just how big of a conspiracy needs covering up.
Scene of the Movie – Riverside meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see more of Jedburgh.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully intense crime thriller that does keep you guessing throughout the film, we get strong performance throughout and a story that has been modernized without looking out of place.
Overall: Hugely entertaining crime thriller.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
great many of us film aficionados have, at one time or another, thought that they’ve seen so many films from so many different genres or written by so many ‘messed up’ writers or directed by so many warped minds that have simply ‘walked off the map’ that nothing and I mean absolutely nothing could shock us. We think we’ve ‘seen everything’ or have been ‘prepared’ for anything shocking that filmmakers might throw our way. As today’s film for your consideration will demonstrate, even folks like ‘us’ can be caught off guard by the occasional ‘curve ball’ by a writer, director, or actor/actress we’ve become acquainted with through their work over the years. I can say this much before we go any further … I have never seen nor did I ever imagine seeing Jim Carrey in a film like this.
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black and Blue (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Having seen the film I can confidently say that this has been woefully under screened. Just one screening at my local, luckily at the sensible time of 17.20 every day. Looking at other times it's getting relegated to some late slots which is never good.
Alicia West has come back to her home town and joined the local police department after being deployed. It's not the neighbourhood she remembers, there's distrust and gangs everywhere she looks, even her old friend pretends not to know her.
Taking a double shift as a favour to her partner she goes out on patrol with Officer Brown, he's old school and not going to change his ways... they don't see eye to eye. He takes a private call and says they need to go on a call so he cn meet a CI. He orders her to stay in the car and she waits suspiciously until two shots ring out. She enters the building to investigate, body cam turned on, and comes across a group of police officers who have executed members of a local gang. Thinking on instinct they shoot at her which allows her to escape. She needs to get the footage uploaded to expose the corruption but between her and the station are corrupt police officers and a community that hates cops. Who can she trust?
I found Black And Blue to be a really enjoyable. The action was tense and the story had a consistent pace all the way through and I felt really gripped as I watched it. My only disappointment was that they gave it sickly sweet ending. It brought the story full circle for West but it was so out of place with what we'd already seen. It wasn't necessary and I feel like it detracted from the effort everything else put in.
Naomie Harris is our lead and she handles the role like a seasoned pro. She brings across the optimism of West's character and you can see the intrigue and sadness in her as she realises just how bad things have become in her neighbourhood. Harris adapts well to each scenario and at times you could feel a genuine sense of fear as she's being pursued.
Frank Grillo plays Terry Malone, the leader of our group of corrupt cops. He's a great bit of casting. Towards the end I feel like the character deviates a little from what I might have expected but the performance was so good to watch that I wasn't too bothered by that.
Another face you'll recognise is Mike Colter as Darius, Darius is the head of one of the local gangs and during the course of the story he's also hot on West's heals. He's a very dark character and Colter captures that well, there's a particularly good scene with West where we're preparing for the finale of the film and the way he changes in his split second decisions really elevates the moment.
The last actor I'll mention is Tyrese Gibson as Milo, Milo brings a much softer side to the whole story, he's not about the violence and I think that Gibson had the perfect demeanour for this role. We get some much needed respite from the heavy tension and action with his scenes. I feel like there's some back story we needed to know for him though, he needed some more explaining and that was just missing in everything we saw.
Black And Blue has a strong message about society divided by hate, I'm not the right person to tell ou its accuracy. There are stereotypes knocking around all over the place but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film focused on the corruption in the neighbourhood and that's what you see, you wouldn't be getting other walks of life so it fits the idea perfectly.
I genuinely enjoyed watching this and the film kept me on the edge of my seat, this it something I'll look forward to watching again.
What you should do
If you like crime drama then I think you'll enjoy this, there's good action and great characters.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of West's kickass moves and super human will to survive.
Alicia West has come back to her home town and joined the local police department after being deployed. It's not the neighbourhood she remembers, there's distrust and gangs everywhere she looks, even her old friend pretends not to know her.
Taking a double shift as a favour to her partner she goes out on patrol with Officer Brown, he's old school and not going to change his ways... they don't see eye to eye. He takes a private call and says they need to go on a call so he cn meet a CI. He orders her to stay in the car and she waits suspiciously until two shots ring out. She enters the building to investigate, body cam turned on, and comes across a group of police officers who have executed members of a local gang. Thinking on instinct they shoot at her which allows her to escape. She needs to get the footage uploaded to expose the corruption but between her and the station are corrupt police officers and a community that hates cops. Who can she trust?
I found Black And Blue to be a really enjoyable. The action was tense and the story had a consistent pace all the way through and I felt really gripped as I watched it. My only disappointment was that they gave it sickly sweet ending. It brought the story full circle for West but it was so out of place with what we'd already seen. It wasn't necessary and I feel like it detracted from the effort everything else put in.
Naomie Harris is our lead and she handles the role like a seasoned pro. She brings across the optimism of West's character and you can see the intrigue and sadness in her as she realises just how bad things have become in her neighbourhood. Harris adapts well to each scenario and at times you could feel a genuine sense of fear as she's being pursued.
Frank Grillo plays Terry Malone, the leader of our group of corrupt cops. He's a great bit of casting. Towards the end I feel like the character deviates a little from what I might have expected but the performance was so good to watch that I wasn't too bothered by that.
Another face you'll recognise is Mike Colter as Darius, Darius is the head of one of the local gangs and during the course of the story he's also hot on West's heals. He's a very dark character and Colter captures that well, there's a particularly good scene with West where we're preparing for the finale of the film and the way he changes in his split second decisions really elevates the moment.
The last actor I'll mention is Tyrese Gibson as Milo, Milo brings a much softer side to the whole story, he's not about the violence and I think that Gibson had the perfect demeanour for this role. We get some much needed respite from the heavy tension and action with his scenes. I feel like there's some back story we needed to know for him though, he needed some more explaining and that was just missing in everything we saw.
Black And Blue has a strong message about society divided by hate, I'm not the right person to tell ou its accuracy. There are stereotypes knocking around all over the place but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film focused on the corruption in the neighbourhood and that's what you see, you wouldn't be getting other walks of life so it fits the idea perfectly.
I genuinely enjoyed watching this and the film kept me on the edge of my seat, this it something I'll look forward to watching again.
What you should do
If you like crime drama then I think you'll enjoy this, there's good action and great characters.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of West's kickass moves and super human will to survive.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bad Frank (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
I love it when a movie can come completely out of nowhere and surprise this humble reviewer. Bad Frank is exactly that, A movie that on paper looks and sounds like most other Kidnap Revenge thrillers you may have seen over the years. But let me tell you that Bad Frank is far from some of the copy and paste garbage out there.
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
I checked up on the BBFC about language allowed in the different rated films. A 15 may have frequent strong language, "the strongest terms may be acceptable if justified by the context", it also says that "aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Inventive, funny and poignant
Writer/Director/Actor Taika Waititi is one of the most original voices working in Film/Television today. He skewered the Vampire flick (at the height of the Twilight craze) in WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. He revived the sagging Thor saga (and some would say the Marvel Cinematic Universe) with a comedic approach to the material in THOR: RAGNAROK, and now with his latest film, JOJO RABBIT, he takes his sense of humor to a subject that is difficult to satire - Adolph Hitler and life in Nazi Germany during WW II.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Annabelle (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Annabelle is the newest demon-based spooky fright film produced by James Wan (producer Saw II-IV & director Insidious 1&2). The trailers would have you believe that it is a prequel to the Conjuring. Well I suppose it is, although a very loose prequel.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.