Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Collateral (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Max (Jamie Foxx), is a man with ambition. He toils his evenings driving a cab in Los Angeles while dreaming of opening his own limo company and making it big. Sadly Max is also a man who is hampered by indecision, as he is unable to take the final step to move towards his dream preferring for the comfort of always dreaming rather than achieving.
In the new Drama “Collateral”, Max is about to have his notion of life and the world turned upside down by a passenger named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who is a polar opposite of Max in every way. Vincent is a well-dressed business man who hires Max for the evening as he needs to make five stops in order to complete what he says are real estate deals. Although reluctant at first, the thought of $600.00 for a few hours work soon convinces Max to take the job and ferry Vincent around Los Angeles.
En route to the first stop, Vincent questions Max about why he is waiting to start his company when he could easily lease a Town car to get started and expand from there. The question unsettles the usually mild Max as what the stranger is saying makes a lot of sense but it also undermines the fact that Max is uncomfortable with taking the next step be it in his business ventures or in his social life such as calling an attractive attorney who was clearly interested in him.
While waiting for Vincent after the first stop, the sky literally falls upon Max’s word when a body crashes on his cab and Vincent forces Max at gunpoint to hide the body and continue driving him around. Vincent has one evening to complete his rounds and each stop will result in another death despite Max’s best efforts to intervene. No matter what Max attempts to get out of the situation or to again help, Vincent is always one step ahead of him and able to manipulate Max.
It does not take long for the tense situation to escalate as the result of Vincent’s work has not gone unnoticed by the police largely due to Max’s involvement, and this only causes Vincent to become even more focused and even more of a danger to Max as he needs to complete his tasks before morning and stay ahead of the police and other potential dangers.
“Collateral” is a gripping and intense thriller that contains some of the best work Cruise has done in his career as he portrays Vincent as a complex character who does not find fault with what he does and has no qualms about taking life, yet is amazed by Max and his unrealized dreams and moved by a performance at a local Jazz club.
One could almost call Vincent a Gentleman bandit were it not for the vast amounts of death and destruction he leaves in his wake. He is clearly an intelligent person who makes no apologies for what he does as he sees it as an insignificant blip in the vast universe.
Foxx meanwhile plays off character as he plays a very quite and withdrawn individual that has to be forced out of his shell. After years of playing brash and outrageous characters it was refreshing to see this talented actor turn in an emotional yet restrained performance that shows that he is a talent on the rise and if properly used, can be a gigantic star as not only is he capable of humor and drama, he can easily move to action when it is warranted and looks comfy and competent doing so.
The film also has some impressive visuals as Director Michael Mann gives viewers some amazing shots of the L.A. skyline at night, and the way he shoots the streets and back alleys with a neon glow gives the film a very natural look. On more than one occasion, I go a sense of déjà vu as the natural manner in which the surrounding city and citizens behave and look like a day in the life of rather than a movie set.
The film does drag a bit roughly ¾ in and some may find the ending a bit pat, but that being said, “Collateral” is a solid action drama and one of the best films of the year.
In the new Drama “Collateral”, Max is about to have his notion of life and the world turned upside down by a passenger named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who is a polar opposite of Max in every way. Vincent is a well-dressed business man who hires Max for the evening as he needs to make five stops in order to complete what he says are real estate deals. Although reluctant at first, the thought of $600.00 for a few hours work soon convinces Max to take the job and ferry Vincent around Los Angeles.
En route to the first stop, Vincent questions Max about why he is waiting to start his company when he could easily lease a Town car to get started and expand from there. The question unsettles the usually mild Max as what the stranger is saying makes a lot of sense but it also undermines the fact that Max is uncomfortable with taking the next step be it in his business ventures or in his social life such as calling an attractive attorney who was clearly interested in him.
While waiting for Vincent after the first stop, the sky literally falls upon Max’s word when a body crashes on his cab and Vincent forces Max at gunpoint to hide the body and continue driving him around. Vincent has one evening to complete his rounds and each stop will result in another death despite Max’s best efforts to intervene. No matter what Max attempts to get out of the situation or to again help, Vincent is always one step ahead of him and able to manipulate Max.
It does not take long for the tense situation to escalate as the result of Vincent’s work has not gone unnoticed by the police largely due to Max’s involvement, and this only causes Vincent to become even more focused and even more of a danger to Max as he needs to complete his tasks before morning and stay ahead of the police and other potential dangers.
“Collateral” is a gripping and intense thriller that contains some of the best work Cruise has done in his career as he portrays Vincent as a complex character who does not find fault with what he does and has no qualms about taking life, yet is amazed by Max and his unrealized dreams and moved by a performance at a local Jazz club.
One could almost call Vincent a Gentleman bandit were it not for the vast amounts of death and destruction he leaves in his wake. He is clearly an intelligent person who makes no apologies for what he does as he sees it as an insignificant blip in the vast universe.
Foxx meanwhile plays off character as he plays a very quite and withdrawn individual that has to be forced out of his shell. After years of playing brash and outrageous characters it was refreshing to see this talented actor turn in an emotional yet restrained performance that shows that he is a talent on the rise and if properly used, can be a gigantic star as not only is he capable of humor and drama, he can easily move to action when it is warranted and looks comfy and competent doing so.
The film also has some impressive visuals as Director Michael Mann gives viewers some amazing shots of the L.A. skyline at night, and the way he shoots the streets and back alleys with a neon glow gives the film a very natural look. On more than one occasion, I go a sense of déjà vu as the natural manner in which the surrounding city and citizens behave and look like a day in the life of rather than a movie set.
The film does drag a bit roughly ¾ in and some may find the ending a bit pat, but that being said, “Collateral” is a solid action drama and one of the best films of the year.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Quentin Tarantino is known for his lengthy, self-indulgent movies - some of which I've loved, some not so much. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a nostalgic homage to 1960s Hollywood and, at 2 hours 41 minutes, it is certainly lengthy and self-indulgent. But, despite some outstanding performances, it's probably at least an hour too long, and proved to be a real test of my patience and endurance.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
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 (980 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 (980 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