Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Air Force One (1997) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Air Force One starts as we see President James Marshall (Ford) having a proud moment after capturing a terrorist leader and coming out with how he wants to take on Congress. Returning home on Air Force One President Marshall finds his plane hijacked by Ivan Korshunov (Oldman) who wants the recently captured terrorist released.
Once in control of Air Force One Ivan uses the President’s wife Grace (Crewson) and daughter Alice (Matthews) as leverage to push the President into breaking his no negotiations with terrorist’s stance, as he uses his combat skills to take out the terrorists himself from on board. The Vice President Kathryn Bennett (Close) has to control things from the ground potentially having to make the biggest decisions.
Air Force One gave us an action film unlike anything we had seen before because this time the action hero was none other than the President himself and yes I know we did get a strong leader in Independence Day but this time he was the star of the show. We get to see how the President will handle the action pressure as well as the big decisions. Another great part of this film is that we get to see the traitor from the start and always wonder what their next move will be. When we see action films we like to cheer for the guy who is against the odds and this gives us that and plenty more as we watch a nation wait for the news of his safety.
Actor Review
Harrison Ford: President James Marshall is a medal of honour winning soldier who has bought in a new no negotiation with terrorist stance. He finds his Air Force One under hijack where instead of escaping like procedure he takes a stand as he tries to take out the men taking over the plane. James is one of the best action Presidents in film history instead of being just a by the book nice guy. Harrison is brilliant in this role where he gets to show a new line of stunt work to go with a strong leader and action star.president
Gary Oldman: Ivan Korshunov is the extremist terrorist who has taken over Air Force One, he will kill any hostages to get what he wants which is one extremist leader to be released from prison. Ivan is one of the most memorable villains of the 90s because he is ruthless to the core. Gary is brilliant in this role showing he can play any character.ivan
Glenn Close: Vice President Kathryn Bennett has to make the decisions back in America as she is left helpless with the hijack of Air Force One. She must deal with all the diplomatic decisions as well as helping her President and innocent people on board the plane. Glenn is great in this role showing how difficult the side of this story is away from the action.vice
Wendy Crewson: Grace Marshall is the wife of the President who is on Air Force One, she becomes the leverage for Ivan to get what he wants. Wendy is good even if the character isn’t given the true screen time needed.
Support Cast: Air Force One has a big supporting cast that is filled with known names in the business who all help the story unfold with their different acts of bravery and betray.
Director Review: Wolfgang Petersen – Wolfgang gives us one of the best action films from the 90s that also gives us glimpses of political decision being made.
Action: Air Force One has plenty of action being most of the President taking on the terrorists.
Adventure: Air Force One works for the adventure side of story trying to save the day.
Thriller: Air Force One keeps us on the edge from the moment that Air Force One is hijack until the end credits.
Settings: Air Force One keeps the settings on both Air Force One and White House as the decisions get made for the good of the country.
Special Effects: Air Force One has good effects for the time but have started to date now.
Suggestion: Air Force One is one for all the action junkies to enjoy. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Parachute escape.
Worst Part: Political side gets slightly annoying.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Con Air, The Rock
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Sound and Film Editing
Box Office: $172 Million
Budget: $85 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Harrison Ford is the President of the United States.
Overall: Brilliant action film that keeps us on edge from start to finish.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/11/air-force-one-1997/
Once in control of Air Force One Ivan uses the President’s wife Grace (Crewson) and daughter Alice (Matthews) as leverage to push the President into breaking his no negotiations with terrorist’s stance, as he uses his combat skills to take out the terrorists himself from on board. The Vice President Kathryn Bennett (Close) has to control things from the ground potentially having to make the biggest decisions.
Air Force One gave us an action film unlike anything we had seen before because this time the action hero was none other than the President himself and yes I know we did get a strong leader in Independence Day but this time he was the star of the show. We get to see how the President will handle the action pressure as well as the big decisions. Another great part of this film is that we get to see the traitor from the start and always wonder what their next move will be. When we see action films we like to cheer for the guy who is against the odds and this gives us that and plenty more as we watch a nation wait for the news of his safety.
Actor Review
Harrison Ford: President James Marshall is a medal of honour winning soldier who has bought in a new no negotiation with terrorist stance. He finds his Air Force One under hijack where instead of escaping like procedure he takes a stand as he tries to take out the men taking over the plane. James is one of the best action Presidents in film history instead of being just a by the book nice guy. Harrison is brilliant in this role where he gets to show a new line of stunt work to go with a strong leader and action star.president
Gary Oldman: Ivan Korshunov is the extremist terrorist who has taken over Air Force One, he will kill any hostages to get what he wants which is one extremist leader to be released from prison. Ivan is one of the most memorable villains of the 90s because he is ruthless to the core. Gary is brilliant in this role showing he can play any character.ivan
Glenn Close: Vice President Kathryn Bennett has to make the decisions back in America as she is left helpless with the hijack of Air Force One. She must deal with all the diplomatic decisions as well as helping her President and innocent people on board the plane. Glenn is great in this role showing how difficult the side of this story is away from the action.vice
Wendy Crewson: Grace Marshall is the wife of the President who is on Air Force One, she becomes the leverage for Ivan to get what he wants. Wendy is good even if the character isn’t given the true screen time needed.
Support Cast: Air Force One has a big supporting cast that is filled with known names in the business who all help the story unfold with their different acts of bravery and betray.
Director Review: Wolfgang Petersen – Wolfgang gives us one of the best action films from the 90s that also gives us glimpses of political decision being made.
Action: Air Force One has plenty of action being most of the President taking on the terrorists.
Adventure: Air Force One works for the adventure side of story trying to save the day.
Thriller: Air Force One keeps us on the edge from the moment that Air Force One is hijack until the end credits.
Settings: Air Force One keeps the settings on both Air Force One and White House as the decisions get made for the good of the country.
Special Effects: Air Force One has good effects for the time but have started to date now.
Suggestion: Air Force One is one for all the action junkies to enjoy. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Parachute escape.
Worst Part: Political side gets slightly annoying.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Con Air, The Rock
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Sound and Film Editing
Box Office: $172 Million
Budget: $85 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Harrison Ford is the President of the United States.
Overall: Brilliant action film that keeps us on edge from start to finish.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/11/air-force-one-1997/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alice Through the Looking Glass starts as Alice (Wasikowska) returns from one of her voyages around the world only to find her dreams of seeing the world have been taken from her. Escaping the real world Wonderland calls Alice back with Queen Mirana (Hathaway) and the rest of the characters need Alice to bring the Hatter (Depp) back to his senses after he falls through memories of his loss.
Alice must travel back through time to save the Hatter’ family and bring him back to his colourful ways. Alice finds herself having to go to Time (Cohen) himself to find a way to save the Hatter where she finds herself coming across an old foe Iracebeth (Carter) who wants to use time to control the kingdoms regaining her crown.
Alice Through the Looking Glass does what Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked have done to The Wizard of Oz by making us want to sympathise with the villainous characters by showing us how they got driven into evil ways because of the bad decisions by the good one. The travel through time works because it does explain certain moments from the story like why Hatter and co have been waiting so long for the tea party. In the end this just tries slightly too much to not bring any new villainous threat to the world to show Alice the important lesson in the real life she is living.
Actor Review
Johnny Depp: Hatter Tarrant Hightopp has gone into a deep depression when he learns to remember the fate of his family, Alice is trying to go through his past to stop this event so we get to meet Hatter as he was younger and struggling to decide whether to follow in his father’s footsteps. Johnny continues his streak of quirky roles but does get over shadowed by Mia.
Mia Wasikowska: Alice is now an adventurer who travels the world only to return home and find her future gone and being forced to give up her dreams. When she returns to Wonderland she must battle the forces of time to save her old friend Hatter and learn to accept her own changes in her life. Mia is good in this role but it is strange seeing an older version of Alice.
Helena Bonham Carter: Iracebeth is the evil queen who lost her crown in the first film, she wants to use time to change the past keeping her power over the kingdoms, but this time we learn about what drove her to be the way she is. Helena continues her blatant rip off performance from Queenie in Blackadder.
Anne Hathaway: Mirana is the good queen of the kingdom who asks Alice to help the Hatter only for us to learn about her younger ways. Anne is very basic in this supporting performance where she doesn’t get much to work with.
Support Cast: Alice Through the Looking Glass has a big supporting cast with Sacha Baron Cohen shining as Time itself chasing Alice down through time.
Director Review: James Bobin – James gives us a solid sequel but seems to mix Oz the Great and Powerful with time travel.
Adventure: Alice Through the Looking Glass does put Alice on an adventure she could only dream of through time itself.
Family: Alice Through the Looking Glass does feel slightly too dark for the youngest members of family to enjoy.
Fantasy: Alice Through the Looking Glass builds on the fantasy world created on the first outing looking deeper into the backstory of the characters involved.
Settings: Alice Through the Looking Glass brings us back to the Wonderland location with the inclusion of the time warehouse location.
Special Effects: Alice Through the Looking Glass is a film you can almost feel the green screen behind the actors.
Suggestion: Alice Through the Looking Glass is only one to try really I don’t think it is one that is that special. (Try It)
Best Part: Time is a good character.
Worst Part: Just feels like a copy of Oz the Great and the Powerful with time travel.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $170 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: This spring, it’s time for a little madness.
Overall: Simple sequel that offers nothing new to the overall Wonderland world.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/23/alice-through-the-looking-glass-2016/
Alice must travel back through time to save the Hatter’ family and bring him back to his colourful ways. Alice finds herself having to go to Time (Cohen) himself to find a way to save the Hatter where she finds herself coming across an old foe Iracebeth (Carter) who wants to use time to control the kingdoms regaining her crown.
Alice Through the Looking Glass does what Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked have done to The Wizard of Oz by making us want to sympathise with the villainous characters by showing us how they got driven into evil ways because of the bad decisions by the good one. The travel through time works because it does explain certain moments from the story like why Hatter and co have been waiting so long for the tea party. In the end this just tries slightly too much to not bring any new villainous threat to the world to show Alice the important lesson in the real life she is living.
Actor Review
Johnny Depp: Hatter Tarrant Hightopp has gone into a deep depression when he learns to remember the fate of his family, Alice is trying to go through his past to stop this event so we get to meet Hatter as he was younger and struggling to decide whether to follow in his father’s footsteps. Johnny continues his streak of quirky roles but does get over shadowed by Mia.
Mia Wasikowska: Alice is now an adventurer who travels the world only to return home and find her future gone and being forced to give up her dreams. When she returns to Wonderland she must battle the forces of time to save her old friend Hatter and learn to accept her own changes in her life. Mia is good in this role but it is strange seeing an older version of Alice.
Helena Bonham Carter: Iracebeth is the evil queen who lost her crown in the first film, she wants to use time to change the past keeping her power over the kingdoms, but this time we learn about what drove her to be the way she is. Helena continues her blatant rip off performance from Queenie in Blackadder.
Anne Hathaway: Mirana is the good queen of the kingdom who asks Alice to help the Hatter only for us to learn about her younger ways. Anne is very basic in this supporting performance where she doesn’t get much to work with.
Support Cast: Alice Through the Looking Glass has a big supporting cast with Sacha Baron Cohen shining as Time itself chasing Alice down through time.
Director Review: James Bobin – James gives us a solid sequel but seems to mix Oz the Great and Powerful with time travel.
Adventure: Alice Through the Looking Glass does put Alice on an adventure she could only dream of through time itself.
Family: Alice Through the Looking Glass does feel slightly too dark for the youngest members of family to enjoy.
Fantasy: Alice Through the Looking Glass builds on the fantasy world created on the first outing looking deeper into the backstory of the characters involved.
Settings: Alice Through the Looking Glass brings us back to the Wonderland location with the inclusion of the time warehouse location.
Special Effects: Alice Through the Looking Glass is a film you can almost feel the green screen behind the actors.
Suggestion: Alice Through the Looking Glass is only one to try really I don’t think it is one that is that special. (Try It)
Best Part: Time is a good character.
Worst Part: Just feels like a copy of Oz the Great and the Powerful with time travel.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $170 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: This spring, it’s time for a little madness.
Overall: Simple sequel that offers nothing new to the overall Wonderland world.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/23/alice-through-the-looking-glass-2016/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Hills Run Red (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Wilson Wyler Concannon was a director who made a horror film twenty years ago that was said to be so gory, so disturbing, and so traumatizing that it was pulled from theaters after only a handful of people got to see it. Now, in the present day, Tyler is obsessed with The Hills Run Red even though a copy of the complete film doesn't seem to exist. After doing countless hours of research on this lost horror gem and seeing the trailer more times than he can count, Tyler decides to make a documentary as he, his best friend Lalo, and girlfriend Serina travel outside the city. Tyler only has one lead to fall back on and that's Alexa Concannon, the daughter of Wilson Wyler Concannon. Tyler feels like this is the break he's been waiting for as he thinks he'll either get to meet the director he's grown to admire or see this lost classic in its entirety to see if it lives up to the hype. But is there really light at the end of this tunnel? For what reason would a film not be released for twenty years? How does the killer, Babyface, fit into all of this? As stated earlier on in the film, some films should stay buried.
Going by the DVD cover and title alone, The Hills Run Red looks like it's just capitalizing on the success of The Hills Have Eyes remake from 2006. So going into the film, that's pretty much what I was expecting. Since it's a horror film that was released straight to DVD, expectations should never be high since they're usually released that way for a reason. Surprisingly though, that wasn't the case this time around as this turned out to be a pretty solid little horror flick. The film winds up bearing little resemblance to the Alexandre Aja directed The Hills Have Eyes as it delivers a fairly original concept and a satisfying experience overall.
The film will pretty much reel any horror fan in with the opening sequence as the atmosphere for the film is set up early on and doesn't shy away from blood and gore. Lack of nudity and sexual content isn't an issue either as there is plenty of that to go around. With all that in mind, this pretty much has everything any horror fan could ask for already: lots of blood and tons of T&A. The acting is also a bar above what you're probably expecting for a release like this. To be honest, it's pretty decent and there really isn't much to complain about in that department. Although, I do think William Sadler steals the show but he's also probably the only recognizable actor in the film. Babyface actually turned out to be quite sadistic and better than his origin let on. When you're shown how he got his name and who he really is, it's kind of lame at first. The concept eventually grows on you though and is pretty original as far as serial killers from slasher films go.
If you ever saw Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, one of its peaks was that it not only pointed out cliche moments in other horror films and dissected them but also wound up breaking most of them while going in a different direction. The Hills Run Red touches on this a bit, as well. Some examples are cell phones actually work out in secluded areas, a gun is brought just in case they run into trouble, and flares are brought in case flashlights don't work. Horror movies need to be as fresh as possible as it seems like just about everything has been done, which is probably one of the reasons remakes are so popular right now. It's just refreshing to see a movie not follow the same generic formula.
You can't always rely on your first impression as The Hills Run Red seemed like nothing more than a copycat horror film that was rushed straight to DVD. In all actuality, however, it turns out to be a sexy, blood-splattering wet dream for horror fans with a better than expected storyline, above par acting, and what could be a new face in the horror franchise. If you like films like this, give this one a go. You may be pleasantly surprised and be sure to catch the extra scene in the middle of the credits at the end.
Going by the DVD cover and title alone, The Hills Run Red looks like it's just capitalizing on the success of The Hills Have Eyes remake from 2006. So going into the film, that's pretty much what I was expecting. Since it's a horror film that was released straight to DVD, expectations should never be high since they're usually released that way for a reason. Surprisingly though, that wasn't the case this time around as this turned out to be a pretty solid little horror flick. The film winds up bearing little resemblance to the Alexandre Aja directed The Hills Have Eyes as it delivers a fairly original concept and a satisfying experience overall.
The film will pretty much reel any horror fan in with the opening sequence as the atmosphere for the film is set up early on and doesn't shy away from blood and gore. Lack of nudity and sexual content isn't an issue either as there is plenty of that to go around. With all that in mind, this pretty much has everything any horror fan could ask for already: lots of blood and tons of T&A. The acting is also a bar above what you're probably expecting for a release like this. To be honest, it's pretty decent and there really isn't much to complain about in that department. Although, I do think William Sadler steals the show but he's also probably the only recognizable actor in the film. Babyface actually turned out to be quite sadistic and better than his origin let on. When you're shown how he got his name and who he really is, it's kind of lame at first. The concept eventually grows on you though and is pretty original as far as serial killers from slasher films go.
If you ever saw Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, one of its peaks was that it not only pointed out cliche moments in other horror films and dissected them but also wound up breaking most of them while going in a different direction. The Hills Run Red touches on this a bit, as well. Some examples are cell phones actually work out in secluded areas, a gun is brought just in case they run into trouble, and flares are brought in case flashlights don't work. Horror movies need to be as fresh as possible as it seems like just about everything has been done, which is probably one of the reasons remakes are so popular right now. It's just refreshing to see a movie not follow the same generic formula.
You can't always rely on your first impression as The Hills Run Red seemed like nothing more than a copycat horror film that was rushed straight to DVD. In all actuality, however, it turns out to be a sexy, blood-splattering wet dream for horror fans with a better than expected storyline, above par acting, and what could be a new face in the horror franchise. If you like films like this, give this one a go. You may be pleasantly surprised and be sure to catch the extra scene in the middle of the credits at the end.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Zombieland (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Columbus is a loner in every sense of the word. He usually spent his nights indoors playing World of Warcraft, so it's safe to say he probably didn't get out much. He wasn't even all that close to his family. So when the zombie apocalypse finally began to spread across the globe, Columbus already had an advantage over the majority of the population. In addition to that, Columbus had a lot of weird phobias (like clowns and those wet towels they use to wipe down tables at big restaurants). As his experience with the undead grew, so did his list of rules on how to survive in Zombieland. Columbus is on his way to Ohio, where his parents reside, hoping that by some miracle they're still alive. Before he can get very far, he runs into the first human face he's seen since the outbreak, Tallahassee. Tallahassee seems to be fearless, lives life in the moment, and worries about consequences later. His hatred for zombies bleeds through so much that his zombie killing ways are practically down to a fine art. What starts out as a potential ride to get him to his final destination could wind up being everything Columbus has ever wanted and that's a family that he feels comfortable with.
Zombieland somehow managed to breathe life into an aspect of horror I thought dried up along with George A. Romero's career and that's zombies. What started out as a fairly fresh idea has been milked dry with every situation going in every possibly way you could think of. You know Zombieland is going to be a bit different as soon as the movie begins. Columbus does a rundown of some of the most important rules he's learned while living in Zombieland leading up to the credits playing over slow-motion scenes of people being chased and eaten by zombies with "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica playing the entire time. The cinematography and the way the characters on screen interact with the letters in the opening credits is incredible. Blood splattering on the screen, glass shattering, and the way everything seems to be jumping out at you. To be honest, it's probably one of my favorite openings to any film ever.
Jesse Eisenberg's character Columbus immediately made me think of Michael Cera when I first saw the trailer. It's a role that's so similar to the roles he's played in the past and I found it kinda funny that a new trailer of Cera's was attached to this film. After that first reaction though, it didn't really bother me. In fact, the entire cast does an incredible job with the roles they play. Woody Harrelson is fantastic and steals a good portion of scenes as Tallahassee. With everything else going on, Tallahassee is on this quest to find a Twinkie and it's pretty hilarious watching him lose it whenever he can't find them. Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock add more to the film when they're acting as a sisterly team rather than when they have scenes separately later on. Their cons are pretty spectacular and priceless in execution.
One of the most interesting factors of the film was something that made its way online two weeks before the film was even released. Zombieland originally started as a TV pilot. Before the cast we're familiar with now was set, Patrick Swayze was going to cameo as a zombie and there were several moments paying homage to Ghost that just sounded amazing and comical. They actually had several people in mind to cameo in the film. The actor they wound up going with is wonderful in their own right, gets plenty of screen time, and manages to steal quite a few laughs, but the Patrick Swayze zombie would've been just as good if not a bit better considering the circumstances.
The finale of the film that takes place in an amusement park is one of the best closing sequences to a zombie film ever. It's surprising no other zombie film has gone that route. The way the rides and carnival attractions are incorporated into zombie execution is marvelous in itself.
Zombieland is witty horror entertainment with a great cast and clever cinematography. A roller coaster ride you immediately want to ride again as soon as its over. What's surprising is it might just wind up being the best all around horror film to come out this year. As the tagline says, I strongly urge each and every one of you to "nut up or shut up."
Zombieland somehow managed to breathe life into an aspect of horror I thought dried up along with George A. Romero's career and that's zombies. What started out as a fairly fresh idea has been milked dry with every situation going in every possibly way you could think of. You know Zombieland is going to be a bit different as soon as the movie begins. Columbus does a rundown of some of the most important rules he's learned while living in Zombieland leading up to the credits playing over slow-motion scenes of people being chased and eaten by zombies with "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica playing the entire time. The cinematography and the way the characters on screen interact with the letters in the opening credits is incredible. Blood splattering on the screen, glass shattering, and the way everything seems to be jumping out at you. To be honest, it's probably one of my favorite openings to any film ever.
Jesse Eisenberg's character Columbus immediately made me think of Michael Cera when I first saw the trailer. It's a role that's so similar to the roles he's played in the past and I found it kinda funny that a new trailer of Cera's was attached to this film. After that first reaction though, it didn't really bother me. In fact, the entire cast does an incredible job with the roles they play. Woody Harrelson is fantastic and steals a good portion of scenes as Tallahassee. With everything else going on, Tallahassee is on this quest to find a Twinkie and it's pretty hilarious watching him lose it whenever he can't find them. Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock add more to the film when they're acting as a sisterly team rather than when they have scenes separately later on. Their cons are pretty spectacular and priceless in execution.
One of the most interesting factors of the film was something that made its way online two weeks before the film was even released. Zombieland originally started as a TV pilot. Before the cast we're familiar with now was set, Patrick Swayze was going to cameo as a zombie and there were several moments paying homage to Ghost that just sounded amazing and comical. They actually had several people in mind to cameo in the film. The actor they wound up going with is wonderful in their own right, gets plenty of screen time, and manages to steal quite a few laughs, but the Patrick Swayze zombie would've been just as good if not a bit better considering the circumstances.
The finale of the film that takes place in an amusement park is one of the best closing sequences to a zombie film ever. It's surprising no other zombie film has gone that route. The way the rides and carnival attractions are incorporated into zombie execution is marvelous in itself.
Zombieland is witty horror entertainment with a great cast and clever cinematography. A roller coaster ride you immediately want to ride again as soon as its over. What's surprising is it might just wind up being the best all around horror film to come out this year. As the tagline says, I strongly urge each and every one of you to "nut up or shut up."
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Last Samurai (2003) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
" I will tell you, how he lived"
The honour and code of the samurai has always been enticing to a Western civilisation that is far removed from such customs, which perhaps makes The Last Samurai such an enticing, enigmatic film. Edward Zwick crafts quite an epic adventure rich in mythology & thematic resonance that while traditionally Hollywood in its construction still manages to exist a cut above many such movies of its ilk, a touch of class surrounding how the story of Captain Nathan Algren is put together, based as it is on several real life legendary American figures who played key roles in the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan during the late 19th century. This isn't a direct re-telling of those events but serves as a leaping off point to construct a tale about a stranger in a strange land, of a man haunted by fighting an unjust war who rediscovers his honour & place in the world through a dying culture. Zwick's film is slick, sweeping, beautifully shot and frequently involving, backed up by a strong performance by Tom Cruise in one of those roles that remind you just what a good actor he can be.
In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.
Algren's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.
What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.
In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.
Algren's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.
What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Social Network (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t know about Facebook. On any given day, at least 250 million active users log on to Facebook and spend over 700 billion minutes per month updating their status, posting pictures or playing casual games. So dominant is this social network, the name itself is both a brand and a verb. Who would have thought that sharing inanities about what we’re currently thinking, eating, reading, watching with our friends would garner such interest? In the new movie The Social Network, director David Fincher sets out to show how, from the very humblest beginnings, Facebook became the juggernaut that it is today.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Gentle, slow-paced and full of HEART
The new "Mr. Rogers" movie, A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is gentle, warm, slow, kind and heartfelt - just the type of film that is antithetical to how life is bounding past all of us on a daily basis. It would be well worth your time to slow down, turn off the electronics, and take in this wonderfully loving film.
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
I saw the trailers for this and thought it looked pretty good, the story sounded interesting and even though the effects in the clips looked a little dubious I was excited for one reason... Jerry Bruckheimer was involved, and I've never seen anything he's done that I didn't enjoy.
Henry Brogan is a master assassin, his whole life has been dedicated to perfecting his craft, but when he discovers he's been misled about a recent kill he decides it's time to hang up his gun. Such a high profile asset can't just retire from his life though and he soon finds himself being pursued. His would-be killer is agile and surprisingly capable, Henry is impressed by the improvising skills, and so he should be... they're his.
I've only just learnt that this film has been on the cards for 20 odd years. When it was first discussed technology wasn't up for the task the idea was pitching. Knowing that fact makes me wonder if they kept a 90's/00's script because the action does have that nostalgic quality. There have been lots of directors and actors attached to it and there's a fun thought experiment to have by exploring the possible outcomes it could have had.
Before I talk about my thoughts on the film I want to touch on the experience I had. Being out of town for the release meant that I was able to go to a cinema showing it in HFR 3D. This is the way it was filmed and intended to be seen but hardly any cinemas (in the world it seems) are able to show it that way. Cineworld Crawley were one of the cinemas that could, initially I wasn't bothered about seeing it in this format, but to be so close and have it snatched away was a real trauma.
I saw roughly the first 3 minutes of the film in HFR 3D and it seems this was the same fate of the screening before too. What I saw of it was mind-blowing, Will Smith was so crystal clear that he probably wouldn't have even looked that good if he was performing it in the room with me. But as I say, (several) 3-minute viewings were all we got before they had to give up and show us the 2D version. I'd be interested to know if anyone has a successful HFR screening. I would like to have seen it all the way through to see how it changed the visuals, sadly that's unlikely to happen now.
Let me put this out there straight away... this film is not good, and yet somehow good.
Gemini Man is a conventional idea with a twist and has an average script, but there's something engaging about the action. Oh, and while the script wasn't great it's entirely accurate when it states "Everyone hates cilantro." Yes, quite right.
De-aging technology has come a long way recently, but it has ups and downs depending on budget. In this respect Gemini Man had me stumped. The CGI in the trailer didn't look great and I assumed that was maybe early footage to get it out in front of audiences, but the film genuinely wasn't much better. There are moments where you don't notice it, you could almost pass Little Will off as the original, but the main problem is he's too familiar. On a lesser-known actor this might have played off better in more scenes. There are several moments where Little Will is lit with a flashlight and those moments caused me the most problems because that lighting looked wrong, particularly on his neck, and any quality work that may have been there was lost with the one bad piece. Most other effects are pretty reasonable until we get to the parkour ninja assassin towards the end... that sequence appears to be CG and everything is too fast and very cartoony.
I don't feel much of a need to talk about acting, it's all... fine. Without an epic script there's not much to work with but everyone makes it work as it needs to. It's a little sad that with 20 years to play with this wasn't a masterpiece on all fronts, or at least the script.
Gemini Man may have had a lot of issues for me but in the moment it's good to watch... even with the cheesy ending and the point where I thought it was directed by John Woo. I won't feel the need to buy this when it comes out but I'll definitely watch it again while hoping to see the HFR version in full.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/gemini-man-movie-review.html
Henry Brogan is a master assassin, his whole life has been dedicated to perfecting his craft, but when he discovers he's been misled about a recent kill he decides it's time to hang up his gun. Such a high profile asset can't just retire from his life though and he soon finds himself being pursued. His would-be killer is agile and surprisingly capable, Henry is impressed by the improvising skills, and so he should be... they're his.
I've only just learnt that this film has been on the cards for 20 odd years. When it was first discussed technology wasn't up for the task the idea was pitching. Knowing that fact makes me wonder if they kept a 90's/00's script because the action does have that nostalgic quality. There have been lots of directors and actors attached to it and there's a fun thought experiment to have by exploring the possible outcomes it could have had.
Before I talk about my thoughts on the film I want to touch on the experience I had. Being out of town for the release meant that I was able to go to a cinema showing it in HFR 3D. This is the way it was filmed and intended to be seen but hardly any cinemas (in the world it seems) are able to show it that way. Cineworld Crawley were one of the cinemas that could, initially I wasn't bothered about seeing it in this format, but to be so close and have it snatched away was a real trauma.
I saw roughly the first 3 minutes of the film in HFR 3D and it seems this was the same fate of the screening before too. What I saw of it was mind-blowing, Will Smith was so crystal clear that he probably wouldn't have even looked that good if he was performing it in the room with me. But as I say, (several) 3-minute viewings were all we got before they had to give up and show us the 2D version. I'd be interested to know if anyone has a successful HFR screening. I would like to have seen it all the way through to see how it changed the visuals, sadly that's unlikely to happen now.
Let me put this out there straight away... this film is not good, and yet somehow good.
Gemini Man is a conventional idea with a twist and has an average script, but there's something engaging about the action. Oh, and while the script wasn't great it's entirely accurate when it states "Everyone hates cilantro." Yes, quite right.
De-aging technology has come a long way recently, but it has ups and downs depending on budget. In this respect Gemini Man had me stumped. The CGI in the trailer didn't look great and I assumed that was maybe early footage to get it out in front of audiences, but the film genuinely wasn't much better. There are moments where you don't notice it, you could almost pass Little Will off as the original, but the main problem is he's too familiar. On a lesser-known actor this might have played off better in more scenes. There are several moments where Little Will is lit with a flashlight and those moments caused me the most problems because that lighting looked wrong, particularly on his neck, and any quality work that may have been there was lost with the one bad piece. Most other effects are pretty reasonable until we get to the parkour ninja assassin towards the end... that sequence appears to be CG and everything is too fast and very cartoony.
I don't feel much of a need to talk about acting, it's all... fine. Without an epic script there's not much to work with but everyone makes it work as it needs to. It's a little sad that with 20 years to play with this wasn't a masterpiece on all fronts, or at least the script.
Gemini Man may have had a lot of issues for me but in the moment it's good to watch... even with the cheesy ending and the point where I thought it was directed by John Woo. I won't feel the need to buy this when it comes out but I'll definitely watch it again while hoping to see the HFR version in full.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/gemini-man-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
