Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Limitless (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After years of hearing women saying this I can now agree that Bradley Cooper does indeed have beautiful eyes. If you don’t believe me go see his new movie Limitless based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn. The movie has so many close-ups of Bradley’s face that you find yourself staring into these blue orbs of beauty, approximately 6 feet across, that utterly mesmerize you and take you to a peaceful place where mice, cats and dogs get along.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 26, 2021
Big Parker Energy
The trilogy of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, has all been leading to this: An all-out battle resulting from a broken spell that Dr. Strange tried to cast. Let’s get this out of the way now: There will be zero spoilers in this review. Let’s also get this out of the way: You are going to love this movie.
Acting: 10
Stakes are extremely high here which could fall short on screen with weaker performances from the cast. The crew doesn’t disappoint here, both new and old. Tom Holland and Zendaya give you absolute gold, both during the high times and especially the low. I haven’t gotten this emotional over a Spider-Man movie since 2004’s Spider-Man 2.
But Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe. It felt like he was playing with an entirely different set of cards, all Aces. His performance was hands-down one of the best I’ve seen in a superhero film and one of the best I’ve seen all year. I absolutely couldn’t get enough of the impact he brought to this movie. Definitely brings the emotion out of you.
Beginning: 8
The movie picks up right where Far From Home leaves off. If you remember what happened at the end of that one, you will recognize that the third allows them to jump right into the conflict. Things start quickly, but not quite perfectly. I know this can be a challenge to do, but I’m wondering if they could have used the first ten minutes to cut to the meat of the story quicker. As it stands, it did take a bit of time for things to pick up.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
I haven’t been this satisfied with superhero action scenes since Avengers: Endgame. Man oh man, I wish I could say more but just know this: If you came to see some hardcore webslinging action, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. Everything is high stakes when you have a multitude of baddies involved. If the action wasn’t enough, you get taken on an emotional rollercoaster as Peter Parker is faced with a number of tough decisions throughout the movie.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
Plot: 7
Perhaps the only thing that could have used just a tad bit of a brushup here. Mind you, this is off of one watch, so I could feel a bit differently if I go back and watch again. Then again, my motto is always, “If I can’t understand it the first time…” Yes, there is a lot to take in here and there are some things the film will ask you to take on face value. To me, the characters got on board with the craziness of what was happening a little too easily for my taste. Definitely could have been a bit more development there. For what it’s worth, the story was mostly solid and moved in fluid fashion.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 92
I don’t always enjoy writing reviews, even when it’s a good one. Here I am at the end of my Spider-Man: No Way Home review and there is so much more that I want to say. Some movies are impactful, others iconic. This one is damn near legendary. Phenomenal job by director Jon Watts who is quickly becoming a legend in my eyes.
Acting: 10
Stakes are extremely high here which could fall short on screen with weaker performances from the cast. The crew doesn’t disappoint here, both new and old. Tom Holland and Zendaya give you absolute gold, both during the high times and especially the low. I haven’t gotten this emotional over a Spider-Man movie since 2004’s Spider-Man 2.
But Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe. It felt like he was playing with an entirely different set of cards, all Aces. His performance was hands-down one of the best I’ve seen in a superhero film and one of the best I’ve seen all year. I absolutely couldn’t get enough of the impact he brought to this movie. Definitely brings the emotion out of you.
Beginning: 8
The movie picks up right where Far From Home leaves off. If you remember what happened at the end of that one, you will recognize that the third allows them to jump right into the conflict. Things start quickly, but not quite perfectly. I know this can be a challenge to do, but I’m wondering if they could have used the first ten minutes to cut to the meat of the story quicker. As it stands, it did take a bit of time for things to pick up.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
I haven’t been this satisfied with superhero action scenes since Avengers: Endgame. Man oh man, I wish I could say more but just know this: If you came to see some hardcore webslinging action, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. Everything is high stakes when you have a multitude of baddies involved. If the action wasn’t enough, you get taken on an emotional rollercoaster as Peter Parker is faced with a number of tough decisions throughout the movie.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
Plot: 7
Perhaps the only thing that could have used just a tad bit of a brushup here. Mind you, this is off of one watch, so I could feel a bit differently if I go back and watch again. Then again, my motto is always, “If I can’t understand it the first time…” Yes, there is a lot to take in here and there are some things the film will ask you to take on face value. To me, the characters got on board with the craziness of what was happening a little too easily for my taste. Definitely could have been a bit more development there. For what it’s worth, the story was mostly solid and moved in fluid fashion.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 92
I don’t always enjoy writing reviews, even when it’s a good one. Here I am at the end of my Spider-Man: No Way Home review and there is so much more that I want to say. Some movies are impactful, others iconic. This one is damn near legendary. Phenomenal job by director Jon Watts who is quickly becoming a legend in my eyes.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Brightburn is a mostly solid 'superhero' horror that sets out what it means to do. The narrative plays out a bit like an issue of Marvel's What If? - in this case, what if an alien baby crashed to earth, much like Superman, but grew up to be a danger to mankind.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Casper (1995) in Movies
Oct 27, 2020
Bill Pullman (1 more)
Christina Ricci
Friendly Ghost
Casper- is a hallloween classic. Its funny, spooky, entertaining and above all a great movie.
The plot: Casper (voiced by Malachi Pearson) is a kind young ghost who peacefully haunts a mansion in Maine. When specialist James Harvey (Bill Pullman) arrives to communicate with Casper and his fellow spirits, he brings along his teenage daughter, Kat (Christina Ricci). Casper quickly falls in love with Kat, but their budding relationship is complicated not only by his transparent state, but also by his troublemaking apparition uncles and their mischievous antics.
The film makes extensive use of computer-generated imagery to create the ghosts, and it is the first feature film to have a fully CGI character in the lead role. It goes for a much darker interpretation of the Friendly Ghost in comparison to the comics, cartoons, and films of the previous years, especially with its theme of death, most notably providing the character a tragic backstory that addresses his death.
In the mirror scene, Dr. Harvey was also supposed to transform into Spielberg. According to director Silberling, the cameo was filmed, but was cut for pacing reasons. Spielberg was relieved, feeling that he is not much of an actor himself and was quite nervous in front of the camera.
It was just strange to see all of those cameos, i felt like thier were just a wink to the audience of whom ever was watching. Like ohh their Dan Aykroyd and ohh their is Mel Gibson and ohh look Cilent Eastwood. The problem is this is films audience is for children, so children wouldnt even know who those people are.
Other than that its a great film.
The plot: Casper (voiced by Malachi Pearson) is a kind young ghost who peacefully haunts a mansion in Maine. When specialist James Harvey (Bill Pullman) arrives to communicate with Casper and his fellow spirits, he brings along his teenage daughter, Kat (Christina Ricci). Casper quickly falls in love with Kat, but their budding relationship is complicated not only by his transparent state, but also by his troublemaking apparition uncles and their mischievous antics.
The film makes extensive use of computer-generated imagery to create the ghosts, and it is the first feature film to have a fully CGI character in the lead role. It goes for a much darker interpretation of the Friendly Ghost in comparison to the comics, cartoons, and films of the previous years, especially with its theme of death, most notably providing the character a tragic backstory that addresses his death.
In the mirror scene, Dr. Harvey was also supposed to transform into Spielberg. According to director Silberling, the cameo was filmed, but was cut for pacing reasons. Spielberg was relieved, feeling that he is not much of an actor himself and was quite nervous in front of the camera.
It was just strange to see all of those cameos, i felt like thier were just a wink to the audience of whom ever was watching. Like ohh their Dan Aykroyd and ohh their is Mel Gibson and ohh look Cilent Eastwood. The problem is this is films audience is for children, so children wouldnt even know who those people are.
Other than that its a great film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Band a Part (1964) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Of all the directors I have flirted with in my opening months with the BFI player, Godard is the one I am finding most accessible and least intimidating. He is the guy whose movies I am most tempted by when I don’t want to think or analyse too much, but simply sit back and enjoy for being cool. I also wanted to see why Quentin Tarantino named his production company after this movie. And now I have seen it his whole oeuvre makes total sense, at last! The exact feel of this Nouvelle Vague cornerstone is exactly what you find in 80% of what Tarantino is trying to do. The plot is incidental, of course. What is happening is only there to pin the characters and quirky dialogue on. Being cool is all. And this mid 60s confection is so cool, so French and so much style over content in the best possible way.
On the surface it is about two dodgy guys who take a shine to a girl and rope her into a heist. But the most memorable moments are the trivialities of them dancing the Maddison in a cafe because they are bored; reading the news aloud from newspapers whilst sat in the woods; driving erratically in a speedy little jalopy with a broken roof; and just making faces at one another as they flirt and express the bittersweet tediousness of being alive. It epitomises the time and place almost more than A Bout de Souffle, and in my opinion is the more mature, more knowing film. Ultimately it means very little, but is impossible not to like. It also sparked a greater interest in Anna Karina as a film icon, being the 2nd film on this list in which she impressed me.
On the surface it is about two dodgy guys who take a shine to a girl and rope her into a heist. But the most memorable moments are the trivialities of them dancing the Maddison in a cafe because they are bored; reading the news aloud from newspapers whilst sat in the woods; driving erratically in a speedy little jalopy with a broken roof; and just making faces at one another as they flirt and express the bittersweet tediousness of being alive. It epitomises the time and place almost more than A Bout de Souffle, and in my opinion is the more mature, more knowing film. Ultimately it means very little, but is impossible not to like. It also sparked a greater interest in Anna Karina as a film icon, being the 2nd film on this list in which she impressed me.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Creature Walks Among Us (1956) in Movies
Sep 22, 2019
The final installment of the Creature trilogy finds another expedition headed out to detain and capture the newly freed creature with a yacht full of doctors and a doctor's wife. After a long journey, the creature in finally located and captured.
The beast is badly burned in a freak fire accident, but afterwards begins to transform. He sheds his webbed appendages and facial gills and starts to look more human and less like a fish. He also can no longer breathe underwater and appears to be becoming more aware of the world around him.
Meanwhile, the doctor's wife is having a rough time of her situation having to deal with not only her abusive husband, but the unwanted advances of other men. Events come to a boiling point among the love triangle and the beast appears to have gotten the blame for something he didn't do.
Aware of the situation he lashes out again for his very survival.
I liked this film better than "Revenge of the Creature", but both films are far inferior to the original classic. Having the creature change so he could walk on land was not a good idea since his ability to swim around and sneak up on the tourists was one of his most endearing qualities!
His transformed look was also a step down from his original appearance. His more human look reminded me of the way Louis Gossett Jr. looked in the movie "Enemy Mine". They may have been trying for something different, especially since this was the 3rd Creature film in 3 years, but it was largely not successful.
Not sure why they chose to have another love scandal either. Why not just focus on the creature and doing something there rather than something you've seen 1000 times before?
The beast is badly burned in a freak fire accident, but afterwards begins to transform. He sheds his webbed appendages and facial gills and starts to look more human and less like a fish. He also can no longer breathe underwater and appears to be becoming more aware of the world around him.
Meanwhile, the doctor's wife is having a rough time of her situation having to deal with not only her abusive husband, but the unwanted advances of other men. Events come to a boiling point among the love triangle and the beast appears to have gotten the blame for something he didn't do.
Aware of the situation he lashes out again for his very survival.
I liked this film better than "Revenge of the Creature", but both films are far inferior to the original classic. Having the creature change so he could walk on land was not a good idea since his ability to swim around and sneak up on the tourists was one of his most endearing qualities!
His transformed look was also a step down from his original appearance. His more human look reminded me of the way Louis Gossett Jr. looked in the movie "Enemy Mine". They may have been trying for something different, especially since this was the 3rd Creature film in 3 years, but it was largely not successful.
Not sure why they chose to have another love scandal either. Why not just focus on the creature and doing something there rather than something you've seen 1000 times before?
Rickey A. Mossow Jr. (689 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Performances are on point. (1 more)
Engrossing plot is well-paced throughout.
Enthralling thriller that promotes discussion.
Having only seen the trailer and done all I could to avoid spoilers. I wasn't sure what to expect with this film. The only thing I knew was that being a Peele film, I knew it would make me think and would be deeper than the average horror flick. The suspense and action are taut throughout and keeps you enwrapped. Little pieces of the plot are paced beautifully throughout and the performances are on point. You're left with questions well past the final reveal and the movie's message promotes inner thought. Any movie that can keep you enthralled from the opening scene to the final one and also promotes discussion is a win-win in my books. May have to rewatch this just to take in more of the messages throughout.
Awix (3310 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 6, 2019 (Updated Jun 6, 2019)
Final main-sequence entry in a film series that made a lot of noise about celebrating difference is likely to be met with indifference (at best). The sense that the X-Men franchise has finally run out of steam is only emphasised by the fact that this is another swing at the Dark Phoenix storyline, which somehow manages to be even less satisfying than the first time they did it.
A thin script and lacklustre direction are mainly to blame; there is the odd decent moment but they are not strung together effectively. Most of the X-Men feel like cardboard cut-outs this time. The usual charisma and acting skill is also largely absent, with only Michael Fassbender making much of an impression. I think it's fair to say that without the X-Men series there would not have been the MCU movies, so this franchise's place in history is assured - but the superhero movie has, ironically, evolved, and this film feels very tired and irrelevant.
A thin script and lacklustre direction are mainly to blame; there is the odd decent moment but they are not strung together effectively. Most of the X-Men feel like cardboard cut-outs this time. The usual charisma and acting skill is also largely absent, with only Michael Fassbender making much of an impression. I think it's fair to say that without the X-Men series there would not have been the MCU movies, so this franchise's place in history is assured - but the superhero movie has, ironically, evolved, and this film feels very tired and irrelevant.
John Taylor recommended The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.