Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My Unfair Lady in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Unfair Lady by Kathryne Kennedy
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Genre: Historical fiction, Historical Romance
Rating: 4/5
Summary (from the back of the book):
HE CREATED THE PERFECT WOMAN… the impoverished Duke of Monchester despises the rich Americans who flock to London, seeking to buy their way into the ranks of the British peerage. So when railroad heiress Summer Wine Lee offers him a king’s ransom if he’ll teach her to become a proper lady, he’s prepared to rebuff her. But when he meets the petite beauty with the knife in her boot, it’s not her fortune he finds impossible to resist…
…FOR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER MAN. Frontier-bred Summer Wine Lee has no interest in winning over London society—it’s the New York bluebloods and her future mother-in-law she’s determined to impress. She knows the cost of smoothing her rough-and-tumble frontier edges will be high. But she never imagined it might cost her her heart…
Review: This book is so cute! The dialogue is lively, the characters are likeable (or in the case of the “bad ones”, hate-able), and the images and descriptions are clear and visible. I loved it by the end of the first chapter.
Summer was my kind of girl. She grinned when things were funny instead of trying to remain indifferent, she wasn’t afraid to show how she felt—but she could also throw a knife, shoot an arrow better than the woman champion of their day, and mount and ride a horse bareback (which I think is so cool!). She has a love for animals—and odd ones at that. She owns a three-legged dog, a dog with four legs but the size of a small horse, a monkey, a pocket-sized puppy, a fox, and a cat with no back legs (it sits in a cart and rolls around the room). She was raised by an Indian (one of those childhood dreams that I never quite left behind…) and he was the one who had taught her all that great stuff. Watching her try to settle into society was hilarious.
MY UNFAIR LADY has a lot of tension in it—both inner turmoil from poor Summer, and also sexual tension between the characters. However, it wasn’t overpowering because was so funny. I found that I laughed just as often as tension was built, so there was a constant, even balance. The end was very exciting, and I found it impossible to put down. Overall, reading this book was a hilarious and wonderful experience, and an unforgettable escape from reality.
Plot: My Fair Lady (the movie) shows a girl who is transformed to a lady, then the man falls in love with her. I love the change that has taken place in MY UNFAIR LADY—The man doesn’t want to change her, because he loves her the way she is. I like this plot better than the first!
Writing: The writing was decent, acceptable, and more readable than a lot of newly published romances. Though it wasn’t Dante, it wasn’t hard to read either.
Content: Refreshingly, there was no language in this book. Summer has her own set of expletives, but they weren’t offensive (“Tarnation!”). As far as sex, let’s just say there were several scenes (pages) in this book that I skipped completely, and just started reading again where the dialogue picked up. I didn’t miss anything important.
Recommendation: Ages 18+ to lovers of Historical fiction, Romance in general, or anyone who loves a girl who can shoot a gun, wield a knife, or use a bow and arrow better than a man!
**Thanks to Danielle at Sourcebooks for supplying my review copy!**
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
VAG_Abbo (4 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Great CGI work as always (3 more)
Little bits of Autobot and Cybertronian history sprinkled in
Lots of humour
Anthony Hopkins (watch it and you will understand)
Story was good yet a bit convoluted (2 more)
Lack of Dinobot screen time
Optimus not a big feature in this one
Better than expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing this film get slated by "professional" reviewers my hopes weren't very high for this instalment of a franchise that I personally enjoy. I was a pleasant surprise by how enjoyable this film was and maybe the number of laughs this film produces helps with that. It's nice to see that this film has visited the history of Cybertron and its race, but at the same time, it isn't over-explaining things and visiting the past too much. Anthony Hopkins has yet again given a great performance in this role and Mark Wahlberg gives a good show as well. For me personally, I think the trailers are a little deceiving as Optimus doesn't feature a great deal in this film. To be honest I think that there isn't enough screen time for any of the transformers as this one seems to be more about the humans, and considering the movie is called Transformers I feel that this is a bit of a letdown. Also, there was no explanation as to how Bumblebee gets his voice back and why it disappears as quick as it shows up. Yes, it's good that Optimus snaps out of the mind control (or is it bad coding in the ECU? LOL) at the sound of his old friend's real voice, but seriously how easy did that happen? If that's all it took then why didn't Bee just talk to him at the start instead of trading blows with each other and risking dying. Yes, maybe it is to get the point across that Bee will do anything for Optimus, but they are in a war they are losing so why let your strongest ally be fighting for the other side for so long? And what about Grimlock and Slag?? Very small bit parts for the Dinobots AND they changed Slags name to Slug!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 14, 2019 (Updated May 14, 2019)
A truly incredible end to the MCU Infinity Saga
SPOLIER FREE REVIEW
Avengers: Endgame is finally here after the shocking events of Infinity War.
First and foremost, a huge amount of respect is owed to the Russo brothers for managing to juggle so many characters across these two films (and Civil War) to a hugely satisfying degree.
But with a smaller cast to manage this time around, this is a film that is able to focus more on the original six Avengers from 2012.
The majority of the film is quite dialogue heavy, as the film focuses on a fun time travel plot, that takes us through a nostalgia filled trip through some of the past MCU films, filled with cameos galore.
The usual mix of thrilling set pieces, emotional beats (that scene set in 1970?), and comedy land just as well as they always have done, with Paul Rudd and Chris Hemsworth delivering most of the humour.
Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johansson shine as Tony Stark and Black Widow, as they always do, and I also enjoyed the amount of time they spent with characters like Hawkeye and Nebula, characters who would usually be considered secondary.
A concern I had going in was that they might use the recently added Captain Marvel, but thankfully isn't the case. She is used sparingly, and therefore effectively.
The only real gripe I have with Endgame, is that Thanos is forced more into a backseat role, after his incredible character arc throughout Infinity War, but is understandable, as mentioned above, this film is all about the original 6, and that's where the main focus lies. Saying that though, I did feel pretty unsatisfied with how they concluded the story arc for Black Widow...
As the movie approaches the inevitable big showdown, the ensuing battle is nothing short of thrilling, a pure scene of unobstructed comic book joy, that will have any Marvel fan trying not to shout at the screen.
All in all, it's a phenomenal ending to this chapter of the MCU, and I can't wait for what comes next (especially now that Marvel Studios have the Fox properties back)
Avengers: Endgame is finally here after the shocking events of Infinity War.
First and foremost, a huge amount of respect is owed to the Russo brothers for managing to juggle so many characters across these two films (and Civil War) to a hugely satisfying degree.
But with a smaller cast to manage this time around, this is a film that is able to focus more on the original six Avengers from 2012.
The majority of the film is quite dialogue heavy, as the film focuses on a fun time travel plot, that takes us through a nostalgia filled trip through some of the past MCU films, filled with cameos galore.
The usual mix of thrilling set pieces, emotional beats (that scene set in 1970?), and comedy land just as well as they always have done, with Paul Rudd and Chris Hemsworth delivering most of the humour.
Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johansson shine as Tony Stark and Black Widow, as they always do, and I also enjoyed the amount of time they spent with characters like Hawkeye and Nebula, characters who would usually be considered secondary.
A concern I had going in was that they might use the recently added Captain Marvel, but thankfully isn't the case. She is used sparingly, and therefore effectively.
The only real gripe I have with Endgame, is that Thanos is forced more into a backseat role, after his incredible character arc throughout Infinity War, but is understandable, as mentioned above, this film is all about the original 6, and that's where the main focus lies. Saying that though, I did feel pretty unsatisfied with how they concluded the story arc for Black Widow...
As the movie approaches the inevitable big showdown, the ensuing battle is nothing short of thrilling, a pure scene of unobstructed comic book joy, that will have any Marvel fan trying not to shout at the screen.
All in all, it's a phenomenal ending to this chapter of the MCU, and I can't wait for what comes next (especially now that Marvel Studios have the Fox properties back)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is on of those films that has no business being as good as it is.
Released a whopping 22 years after the beloved original, it's existence feels like it should be firmly in the "money grab" territory of Hollywood, but that just simply isn't the case.
Firstly, it's not just a re hash of the original plot. This time around, four teenagers all in detention for one reason or another, come across an old, unrecognisable games console labelled 'Jumanji'. After booting up the game and selecting their desired characters, the group are sucked into the game world, and have to complete it from within if they want to escape with their lives.
When in the game, the teens take on the roles of the characters they selected, each with their own skill sets. It's a delight for any video game fans, with fun references and silly NPC jokes scattered around.
The four younger actors don't get a huge amount of screen time, but they're engaging enough when they are about, bit the stars are of course the four who are front and centre of all the advertising. The chemistry between Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Karen Gillan, Kevin Hart and Jack Black is fantastic and genuine. The script is tight and joke heavy, and every humourous line lands without fail. They all do a great job of awkward teenagers trapped inside the bodies of video game characters. Jack Black is a particular highlight, essentially playing an Instagram obsessed 18 year old girl.
The whole movie is pretty hilarious. It also carries a passive story of friendship and family, as the four very different people form a strong bond as the story progresses.
The action sequences are pretty thrilling as well, even if it is hard to not notice the excessive CGI at times.
WTTJ is a really enjoyable popcorn blockbuster. It's funny, silly, and has enough substance to it to get nicely invested in the characters. It even includes a subtle and tasteful nod to Robin Williams' character from 1995, and is a classy touch.
Released a whopping 22 years after the beloved original, it's existence feels like it should be firmly in the "money grab" territory of Hollywood, but that just simply isn't the case.
Firstly, it's not just a re hash of the original plot. This time around, four teenagers all in detention for one reason or another, come across an old, unrecognisable games console labelled 'Jumanji'. After booting up the game and selecting their desired characters, the group are sucked into the game world, and have to complete it from within if they want to escape with their lives.
When in the game, the teens take on the roles of the characters they selected, each with their own skill sets. It's a delight for any video game fans, with fun references and silly NPC jokes scattered around.
The four younger actors don't get a huge amount of screen time, but they're engaging enough when they are about, bit the stars are of course the four who are front and centre of all the advertising. The chemistry between Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Karen Gillan, Kevin Hart and Jack Black is fantastic and genuine. The script is tight and joke heavy, and every humourous line lands without fail. They all do a great job of awkward teenagers trapped inside the bodies of video game characters. Jack Black is a particular highlight, essentially playing an Instagram obsessed 18 year old girl.
The whole movie is pretty hilarious. It also carries a passive story of friendship and family, as the four very different people form a strong bond as the story progresses.
The action sequences are pretty thrilling as well, even if it is hard to not notice the excessive CGI at times.
WTTJ is a really enjoyable popcorn blockbuster. It's funny, silly, and has enough substance to it to get nicely invested in the characters. It even includes a subtle and tasteful nod to Robin Williams' character from 1995, and is a classy touch.
Illeana Douglas recommended Vagabond (1985) in Movies (curated)
Places Around
Travel and Navigation
App
With "Places Around", finding any place around you, is only a tap. Restaurants to Hospitals, Gas...
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Swan (2010) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Darren Aronofsky has been circling movie news sites pretty frequently as of late. He recently signed on to direct the stand-alone sequel to Wolverine (appropriately titled The Wolverine). He also developed a rather large and devoted fanbase over the course of directing fantastically surreal films such as Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Wrestler, but his psychological thriller Black Swan has also been gaining quite a bit of steam leading up to its December 3rd release. Despite Aronofsky's already well-established reputation and the rather high anticipation for the film, Black Swan still delivers a product that is even better than expected.
Like most ballerinas, Nina (Portman) lives, breathes, and is completely devoted to dance. Artistic director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) is preparing a new spring production of his interpretation of Swan Lake. Nina is next in line to become prima ballerina after the former dancer to hold that spot, Beth Macintyre (Ryder), reluctantly retires. Everything seems to be shifting in that direction until a rather unorthodox, provocative, and unstable (in a dangerous kind of way) dancer named Lily (Kunis) arrives. Lily seems to have an eye for Nina's spot as soon as she walks through the door. Thomas begins to see Nina as the White Swan, which signifies innocence and perfection and Lily as the Black Swan, which is more sensual and deceptive. The problem is that one dancer is required to play both parts. Other than the stiff competition she has to deal with, The Swan Queen role begins to take its toll on Nina who begins to think Lily wants even more than her spot in the production. Nina's obsessive behavior leads to her releasing her dark side that she must now struggle to control.
Aronofsky has always had an exceptional eye for cinematography in his films. His use of micro-photography in The Fountain made the entire film a visually stunning spectacle that will stand the test of time while something like a someone's pupil dilating or a drug deal gone bad in Requiem for a Dream is memorable because of the way and angle Aronofsky shot it rather than relying on its disturbing content to make the scene a classic. Black Swan is no different. Being placed behind Nina whenever she heads to the dance venue gives the viewer a rather unique third person perspective that also gives the impression that you're walking right behind the main character of the film. The intense dream sequences are also shot in a way that flawlessly blur the line between reality and hallucination. Is this really happening or is it all a figment of Nina's deteriorating imagination? Figuring that out is half the film's charm.
The extraordinary main cast is the main ingredient to the film being as great as it is though. The key players all seem to have this twisted side to them that is nearly the exact opposite of the way they first appear to be, which coincides with the Swan Lake theme. Winona Ryder steals most of the screen time she's given whether she's trashing her dressing room, yelling obscenities in Portman's face, or sitting in a hospital room. Even though Mila Kunis seems to play nothing more than her role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall to the most extreme degree on the surface, it's the edge she's given that results in unpredictablity for her character. While Vincent Cassel's performance is strong thanks to his sensual reputation with his dancers and Barbara Hersey is both charming and disturbing as Nina's mother who seems to secretly be trying to live in her daughter's dance shoes after a missed opportunity in her past, it's no surprise to hear that Natalie Portman is the heart of the film. Nina is so consumed with dance that she keeps pushing herself even when her mind and body begin to show her that she's had enough. Her breakdowns are heartbreaking and engaging to watch while her transformation by the end of the film can best be described as a monstrous beauty. It's all thanks to Portman's powerful, phenomenal, tour de force performance.
While some might not be surprised that Aronofsky has created another masterpiece, this may be his most solid and well-rounded film to date. Black Swan is a beautiful, disturbing, and captivating work of art that features gorgeous camera work, an excellent and mindbending story, and one of Natalie Portman's best performances.
Like most ballerinas, Nina (Portman) lives, breathes, and is completely devoted to dance. Artistic director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) is preparing a new spring production of his interpretation of Swan Lake. Nina is next in line to become prima ballerina after the former dancer to hold that spot, Beth Macintyre (Ryder), reluctantly retires. Everything seems to be shifting in that direction until a rather unorthodox, provocative, and unstable (in a dangerous kind of way) dancer named Lily (Kunis) arrives. Lily seems to have an eye for Nina's spot as soon as she walks through the door. Thomas begins to see Nina as the White Swan, which signifies innocence and perfection and Lily as the Black Swan, which is more sensual and deceptive. The problem is that one dancer is required to play both parts. Other than the stiff competition she has to deal with, The Swan Queen role begins to take its toll on Nina who begins to think Lily wants even more than her spot in the production. Nina's obsessive behavior leads to her releasing her dark side that she must now struggle to control.
Aronofsky has always had an exceptional eye for cinematography in his films. His use of micro-photography in The Fountain made the entire film a visually stunning spectacle that will stand the test of time while something like a someone's pupil dilating or a drug deal gone bad in Requiem for a Dream is memorable because of the way and angle Aronofsky shot it rather than relying on its disturbing content to make the scene a classic. Black Swan is no different. Being placed behind Nina whenever she heads to the dance venue gives the viewer a rather unique third person perspective that also gives the impression that you're walking right behind the main character of the film. The intense dream sequences are also shot in a way that flawlessly blur the line between reality and hallucination. Is this really happening or is it all a figment of Nina's deteriorating imagination? Figuring that out is half the film's charm.
The extraordinary main cast is the main ingredient to the film being as great as it is though. The key players all seem to have this twisted side to them that is nearly the exact opposite of the way they first appear to be, which coincides with the Swan Lake theme. Winona Ryder steals most of the screen time she's given whether she's trashing her dressing room, yelling obscenities in Portman's face, or sitting in a hospital room. Even though Mila Kunis seems to play nothing more than her role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall to the most extreme degree on the surface, it's the edge she's given that results in unpredictablity for her character. While Vincent Cassel's performance is strong thanks to his sensual reputation with his dancers and Barbara Hersey is both charming and disturbing as Nina's mother who seems to secretly be trying to live in her daughter's dance shoes after a missed opportunity in her past, it's no surprise to hear that Natalie Portman is the heart of the film. Nina is so consumed with dance that she keeps pushing herself even when her mind and body begin to show her that she's had enough. Her breakdowns are heartbreaking and engaging to watch while her transformation by the end of the film can best be described as a monstrous beauty. It's all thanks to Portman's powerful, phenomenal, tour de force performance.
While some might not be surprised that Aronofsky has created another masterpiece, this may be his most solid and well-rounded film to date. Black Swan is a beautiful, disturbing, and captivating work of art that features gorgeous camera work, an excellent and mindbending story, and one of Natalie Portman's best performances.