Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
If this is where the monarchy is headed Count me out!
Lion king 2019 is by far the worst of the Disney live action remakes & while newcomers/children will certainly love it many of the people that hold the original close to their hearts will leave wishing they had just stayed home with the far superior predecessor instead. Aladdin & The Lion King are two of the greatest animated feature films of all time & as I experienced them both in cinema on release they are very special to me. Now i loved the Aladdin remake & im not one for comparing these to the animated features but while I was watching this all i could think about was how much better the original is. While it looks absolutely gorgeous (until anything starts to move) the animation at times is so unnatural especially when animals are walking slowly that its constantly distracting & kills the illusion of these creatures being real. Voice work is bland/mediocre & delivered with almost no enthusiasm at all like the cast were more concerned with sounding different to the original than giving the characters charm & personality. Voices also dont feel connected to the characters like your watching a nature documentary thats been dubbed over. While Aladdin did its own thing & changed up the movie Lion King is practically & infuriatingly a scene for scene remake which would be ok if it had the charm, colour, grand scale, imagination, excitement, thrill, humour & emotional impact of the original but it doesnt. Songs are butchered/dull with seemingly no energy or spectacle to them at all feeling significantly toned down/grounded rather than fun & toe tapping (they have also ruined 'Be Prepared'). So whats new? theres new humour & yup you guessed it its really bad with awkward timing & dragged out jokes that just fall flat. I wanted so bad to love this movie but not even a scense of nostalgia kicked in either because the film is just soulless, unenthusiastic, boring, bland, lacking in excitement & magic. Kids will no doubt love it but for me its this years biggest let down. If it were a silent film with an epic score over the top it might of at least been unique/watchable & helped be bearable but as it is I just cant recomend seeing it. A big fat cash grab.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Dec 29, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
I absolutely love The Cabin in the Woods. It's masquerades as a straight up horror flick but with a ridiculous curve ball thrown in(no spoilers here, but seriously, watch it already!), that manages to subvert everything you would expect from a standard slasher type horror.
The cast are all great - Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams - all play typically heightened stereotypes of the kind of run of the mill teenage cannon fodder you usually find within the genre, and with the film's tongue firmly in cheek, it hard to not like any of them.
Then you also have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford providing the majority of the comic relief, and the two of them together are pretty funny, and seem to be having a ball filming.
The narrative of The Cabin in the Woods is the secret ingredient here though. It's fun, it's different, and when the aforementioned twist arrives, it shifts heard pretty quickly, providing one if the most absurd and memorable final acts I've seen in a horror movie.
The gore and violence on display is truly astonishing, and it's nice to see that the effects teams on board used a lot of practical effects to achieve a lot of this, with digital effects used only when necessary. The costume designs for a certain aspect of the film are fantastic as well (still trying to avoid spoilers).
I can't for the life of me see why anyone who likes horror wouldn't get a kick out of The Cabin in the Woods. It tries to do something different, and in my opinion pulls it off with flying bloody colours, and is easily one of my favourite horrors out there.
The cast are all great - Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams - all play typically heightened stereotypes of the kind of run of the mill teenage cannon fodder you usually find within the genre, and with the film's tongue firmly in cheek, it hard to not like any of them.
Then you also have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford providing the majority of the comic relief, and the two of them together are pretty funny, and seem to be having a ball filming.
The narrative of The Cabin in the Woods is the secret ingredient here though. It's fun, it's different, and when the aforementioned twist arrives, it shifts heard pretty quickly, providing one if the most absurd and memorable final acts I've seen in a horror movie.
The gore and violence on display is truly astonishing, and it's nice to see that the effects teams on board used a lot of practical effects to achieve a lot of this, with digital effects used only when necessary. The costume designs for a certain aspect of the film are fantastic as well (still trying to avoid spoilers).
I can't for the life of me see why anyone who likes horror wouldn't get a kick out of The Cabin in the Woods. It tries to do something different, and in my opinion pulls it off with flying bloody colours, and is easily one of my favourite horrors out there.
Martin Scorsese recommended 8 1/2 (1963) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
In short, The Hunt is an action heavy, Battle Royale inspired semi-horror that attempts to satire political leanings, conspiracy theorists, keyboard warriors, and the rich elite.
The main issue I had was that all of the satire is very on the nose, possibly a purposeful choice? Either way, it gives the impression that The Hunt thinks it's cleverer than it actually is. This is constantly present within the unbalanced dialogue. Some of it is genuinely funny, some of it comes across as try hard, attempting to cram in as many messages as possible resulting in none of these commentaries being particularly clear cut.
Then again, it's not a film to be taken seriously and this could actually be a non-point - hard to tell!
It would be a an altogether worse movie if it wasn't for lead actress Betty Gilpin. Her character Crystal is the picture perfect no bullshit, badass final girl, and her performance elevates The Hunt as a whole.
I could be wrong, but it also seems like she did her own stunts, which is particularly badass considering the ridiculous fight scene near the films end. Same can be said for the always reliable Hilary Swank. Pretty sure the two of them were just going at it, and it's easily the films best scene.
The whole film is actually a more gory experience than I expected, and is pretty effective, even if a lot of it is obvious CGI.
The Hunt is a loud and obnoxious experience that is frequently muddied by it's own smugness, but the stand out performance from Gilpin, and some genuinely great set pieces ensure that it's an entertaining action-horror that's worth a watch.
The main issue I had was that all of the satire is very on the nose, possibly a purposeful choice? Either way, it gives the impression that The Hunt thinks it's cleverer than it actually is. This is constantly present within the unbalanced dialogue. Some of it is genuinely funny, some of it comes across as try hard, attempting to cram in as many messages as possible resulting in none of these commentaries being particularly clear cut.
Then again, it's not a film to be taken seriously and this could actually be a non-point - hard to tell!
It would be a an altogether worse movie if it wasn't for lead actress Betty Gilpin. Her character Crystal is the picture perfect no bullshit, badass final girl, and her performance elevates The Hunt as a whole.
I could be wrong, but it also seems like she did her own stunts, which is particularly badass considering the ridiculous fight scene near the films end. Same can be said for the always reliable Hilary Swank. Pretty sure the two of them were just going at it, and it's easily the films best scene.
The whole film is actually a more gory experience than I expected, and is pretty effective, even if a lot of it is obvious CGI.
The Hunt is a loud and obnoxious experience that is frequently muddied by it's own smugness, but the stand out performance from Gilpin, and some genuinely great set pieces ensure that it's an entertaining action-horror that's worth a watch.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If there is a better example of a tired franchise that needs to be left alone now, then The Terminator brand is it. Messing about with time-lines and alternate realities should be a blank canvas for creativity, as it was in the first two James Cameron sci-fi classics, but for three films in a row it has been a confusing, preposterous recipe for action movie disaster. Where all three Terminator films since T2 are letting us down is in trying to crowbar too much narrative into too little space, whilst favouring the CG fight sequences over any other aspect of story or character. Basically, the writers, directors and marketing machines of all three have killed them in the starting blocks. What started out as a mind-blowing commentary on fate and survival has become a lazy excuse for cheesy one liner delivery and re-hashed action sequences devoid of true tension.
I prefer this to Genysis, but don’t like it quite as much as Salvation, although all three are awful messes really. It is cute to see Linda Hamilton return after so long, but truthfully did anyone really need it? She is fine, if largely unmemorable here, as is Arnie, who phones it in as usual. But the latest Terminator itself, aka Gabriel, is boring and brings little new to the table. What is worth applauding is the commitment to the role of Grace by Mackenzie Davis, who kicks ass in every scene and also acts everyone else out of the ballpark. As a whole it isn’t as bad as you might fear it would be, but it still isn’t great. Watch it only if you are a Terminator completist or you really don’t have anything else to do.
I prefer this to Genysis, but don’t like it quite as much as Salvation, although all three are awful messes really. It is cute to see Linda Hamilton return after so long, but truthfully did anyone really need it? She is fine, if largely unmemorable here, as is Arnie, who phones it in as usual. But the latest Terminator itself, aka Gabriel, is boring and brings little new to the table. What is worth applauding is the commitment to the role of Grace by Mackenzie Davis, who kicks ass in every scene and also acts everyone else out of the ballpark. As a whole it isn’t as bad as you might fear it would be, but it still isn’t great. Watch it only if you are a Terminator completist or you really don’t have anything else to do.
Piano+ - Playable with Chord & Sheet Music
Music and Education
1.0
Rate It
App
** Piano app made for those who want to play full-fledged musical instruments! ** ** No ads! ** ...
100 PICS Quiz
Games and Entertainment
App
The world's greatest picture trivia game ● Over 10,000 pictures to play ● Play over 100 quiz...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Run All Night (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Neeson at his gritty best
It’s fair to say Liam Neeson has picked some decidedly dodgy acting jobs since his rise to become an A-list Hollywood action hero. From a disappointing turn in the most recent A Team movie to the laughably bad Taken 3, he seems to have been turned from fan favourite to the butt of so many jokes.
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/