Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Elton John has had a career that has spanned decades, millions of albums sold, packed venues, awards, and more than a few headlines. In the new film “Rocketman” audiences get a look behind the man thanks to the amazing and Oscar worthy portrayal by Taron Egerton.
The film opens with a flamboyantly dressed John entering rehab in one of his stage costumes. As he opens up with his group, he shares the story of his childhood as a shy child who is desperate to have his father show him any signs of approval or affection.
When it is discovered that he has talent with the piano; his grandmother encourages him and even takes him to apply for a position at the Royal Academy of Music.
His mother (Bryce Dallas Howard) is moderately supportive but is more focused on her social life brought on by her failing marriage.
As the film unfolds; we see Elton working in a backup band and in time answering an ad that puts him with an agent. Paired with the man who would eventually change his life; Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), Elton and Bernie combine to write a series of songs which in turn leads him to a series of gigs in Los Angeles. The film shifts into high gear at this point as we see how their music becomes a smash and leads to a series of parties, drugs, and money.
Elton meets Manager John Reid (Richard Madden), who becomes his
As the record sales and hits mount, so does the destructive behaviors which leads Elton down a destructive path that threatens everything he has worked for.
The movie is a masterpiece of music and story and it cleverly uses musical montages and segments around the performances to outline various segments of his life and his rise to stardom.
The performances are amazing and Egerton was simply amazing as he not only captured the complexity of his character but performed all the vocals of the hit songs himself and they were spot on.
During our Press Screening I noticed many people singing along, tapping their feet, or bobbing their heads along with the music which helps to underscore just how timeless and popular his catalog of music has been as the songs have endured the test of time.
The film also evokes some unexpected emotion as there were more than a few people wiping their eyes during the film which at its core is a store of a young, shy boy desperate to be accepted and loved.
I truly hope the film is recognized come Awards season as it is a wonderful and memorable cinematic experience.
http://sknr.net/2019/05/31/rocketman/
The film opens with a flamboyantly dressed John entering rehab in one of his stage costumes. As he opens up with his group, he shares the story of his childhood as a shy child who is desperate to have his father show him any signs of approval or affection.
When it is discovered that he has talent with the piano; his grandmother encourages him and even takes him to apply for a position at the Royal Academy of Music.
His mother (Bryce Dallas Howard) is moderately supportive but is more focused on her social life brought on by her failing marriage.
As the film unfolds; we see Elton working in a backup band and in time answering an ad that puts him with an agent. Paired with the man who would eventually change his life; Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), Elton and Bernie combine to write a series of songs which in turn leads him to a series of gigs in Los Angeles. The film shifts into high gear at this point as we see how their music becomes a smash and leads to a series of parties, drugs, and money.
Elton meets Manager John Reid (Richard Madden), who becomes his
As the record sales and hits mount, so does the destructive behaviors which leads Elton down a destructive path that threatens everything he has worked for.
The movie is a masterpiece of music and story and it cleverly uses musical montages and segments around the performances to outline various segments of his life and his rise to stardom.
The performances are amazing and Egerton was simply amazing as he not only captured the complexity of his character but performed all the vocals of the hit songs himself and they were spot on.
During our Press Screening I noticed many people singing along, tapping their feet, or bobbing their heads along with the music which helps to underscore just how timeless and popular his catalog of music has been as the songs have endured the test of time.
The film also evokes some unexpected emotion as there were more than a few people wiping their eyes during the film which at its core is a store of a young, shy boy desperate to be accepted and loved.
I truly hope the film is recognized come Awards season as it is a wonderful and memorable cinematic experience.
http://sknr.net/2019/05/31/rocketman/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Adam Project (2022) in Movies
Mar 23, 2022
Family Friendly, fun, action/comedy
Ryan Reynolds is making a nice living, not only is he on the “A” list for such films as DEADPOOL and FREE GUY (a wonderful film that you have to check out if you haven’t seen it), He is also popping up in charming action/comedy films that go straight to Streaming on Netflix. Following the fun romp that was RED NOTICE (with Gal Gadot and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson), he is back in the Shawn Levy helmed THE ADAM PROJECT.
And while this film is not doing anything special, nor will it be nominated for any kind of awards, it is a fun, entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.
Family friendly, THE ADAM PROJECT, stars Reynolds as…you got it…Adam. A time traveling pilot who goes back in time to find his father - the inventor of time travel - and stop him. Along the way, her runs into his younger self, his mother and a very important person from Adam’s past…or rather…future…or…
You get the idea, it’s a time travel movie, so I wouldn’t get too caught up in “the rules” or dig too deeply into the plot.
Reynolds, of course, is charming as pilot Adam, ready with a laser gun and a quip. His quick wit and snappy banter is reminiscent of many, many other roles that Reynolds has played…and that is okay. He is joined by his younger self (dubbed Small Adam) who is played as a young Ryan Reynolds mimic very well by newcomer Walker Scobell. To be honest, Scobell is annoying early on in this film - and that is on purpose - for what is charming in the adult Reynolds is really annoying in a 12 year old.
Jennifer Garner (Mom), Mark Ruffalo (Dad) and Zoe Saldana (mysterious person from Adam’s past…I mean…future) are “professional” in their respective roles, bringing the right amount of whatever their character needs at the moment. Finally, surprisingly, indie film icon Catherine Keener is very good as the “bad buy” in this piece.
All of this is handled deftly by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM). His track record shows that he knows how to do these family friendly, action/comedy/adventure films and he does not disappoint here. He moves things along at a brisk enough pace to keep all interested while throwing in comedy and snappy banter along the way.
All-in-All, a very fun way to spend a couple of hours - certainly a good way to spend a crisp Spring evening whilst waiting for the warmer weather to arrive.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film is not doing anything special, nor will it be nominated for any kind of awards, it is a fun, entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.
Family friendly, THE ADAM PROJECT, stars Reynolds as…you got it…Adam. A time traveling pilot who goes back in time to find his father - the inventor of time travel - and stop him. Along the way, her runs into his younger self, his mother and a very important person from Adam’s past…or rather…future…or…
You get the idea, it’s a time travel movie, so I wouldn’t get too caught up in “the rules” or dig too deeply into the plot.
Reynolds, of course, is charming as pilot Adam, ready with a laser gun and a quip. His quick wit and snappy banter is reminiscent of many, many other roles that Reynolds has played…and that is okay. He is joined by his younger self (dubbed Small Adam) who is played as a young Ryan Reynolds mimic very well by newcomer Walker Scobell. To be honest, Scobell is annoying early on in this film - and that is on purpose - for what is charming in the adult Reynolds is really annoying in a 12 year old.
Jennifer Garner (Mom), Mark Ruffalo (Dad) and Zoe Saldana (mysterious person from Adam’s past…I mean…future) are “professional” in their respective roles, bringing the right amount of whatever their character needs at the moment. Finally, surprisingly, indie film icon Catherine Keener is very good as the “bad buy” in this piece.
All of this is handled deftly by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM). His track record shows that he knows how to do these family friendly, action/comedy/adventure films and he does not disappoint here. He moves things along at a brisk enough pace to keep all interested while throwing in comedy and snappy banter along the way.
All-in-All, a very fun way to spend a couple of hours - certainly a good way to spend a crisp Spring evening whilst waiting for the warmer weather to arrive.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Death Note (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Netflix has done a damn good job with its house produced movies and shows – except for Death Note. This movie is complete and utter trash. For those of you that don’t know, I ran a site that focused largely on anime for several years. The site was called Project Otaku and served as a press outlet as well (I was able to attend Japan Expo as press and one of my writers attended NYCC). So naturally, I’ve seen the anime and I had high expectations.
First, it should be noted that with this film, Netflix joined the ranks of the Hollywood studios that have white-washed and bastardized several remakes of Asian horror films. From Oldboy to The Grudge to Ghost in the Shell (and countless others), it’s like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (There’s rumors that my favorite Japanese horror flick, Audition, will soon fall prey to this too.) Honestly, they should just stop.
This version of Death Note takes place in Seattle, thus localizing it to the US. There is also no second notebook, which in the anime and manga are used to misdirect law enforcement. Because there’s only one notebook, there’s no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflix’s adaptation, including modification of rules for no apparent reason (such as the days the Death Note can be lost).
Overall, I regret watching this. It was a waste of my time.
First, it should be noted that with this film, Netflix joined the ranks of the Hollywood studios that have white-washed and bastardized several remakes of Asian horror films. From Oldboy to The Grudge to Ghost in the Shell (and countless others), it’s like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (There’s rumors that my favorite Japanese horror flick, Audition, will soon fall prey to this too.) Honestly, they should just stop.
This version of Death Note takes place in Seattle, thus localizing it to the US. There is also no second notebook, which in the anime and manga are used to misdirect law enforcement. Because there’s only one notebook, there’s no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflix’s adaptation, including modification of rules for no apparent reason (such as the days the Death Note can be lost).
Overall, I regret watching this. It was a waste of my time.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019 (Updated Dec 19, 2019)
Attack of the Clones is easily my least favourite Star Wars movie, but still, I can't bring myself to completely hate it. It's still Star Wars. It's still a big part of my childhood.
The main issues for me lie within the story, and perhaps most infamously, the romance plot between Anakin and Padme. It's an integral part of the story for sure, but the dialogue is horrible, Hayden Christensen is oddly wooden, and unfortunately, it takes up a big part of Episode II's runtime.
I also find the action set pieces in AOTC a very mixed bag. Nothing particularly stands out, except maybe the arena fight scene with hundreds of Jedis, and the potentially great chase scene near the start is soiled by the needlessly quippy script work.
It's not all bad though. There are some great actors involved - Ewan McGregor is still awesome as Obi Wan, and of course, we're introduced to Count Dooku, played by the ever incredible Christopher Lee (although is character is ultimately pointless).
Locations such as Kamino are something new and different and great to look at, and then of course, the single most important thing about AOTC - it paved the way for the Clone Wars TV show, so it definitely deserves credit for that.
Unfortunately, Episode II feels overstuffed with a while lot of nothing, and is no where the same quality as Star Wars at it's very best, but like I said, I can't hate on it too much. For better or worse, it's part of the Star Wars experience.
The main issues for me lie within the story, and perhaps most infamously, the romance plot between Anakin and Padme. It's an integral part of the story for sure, but the dialogue is horrible, Hayden Christensen is oddly wooden, and unfortunately, it takes up a big part of Episode II's runtime.
I also find the action set pieces in AOTC a very mixed bag. Nothing particularly stands out, except maybe the arena fight scene with hundreds of Jedis, and the potentially great chase scene near the start is soiled by the needlessly quippy script work.
It's not all bad though. There are some great actors involved - Ewan McGregor is still awesome as Obi Wan, and of course, we're introduced to Count Dooku, played by the ever incredible Christopher Lee (although is character is ultimately pointless).
Locations such as Kamino are something new and different and great to look at, and then of course, the single most important thing about AOTC - it paved the way for the Clone Wars TV show, so it definitely deserves credit for that.
Unfortunately, Episode II feels overstuffed with a while lot of nothing, and is no where the same quality as Star Wars at it's very best, but like I said, I can't hate on it too much. For better or worse, it's part of the Star Wars experience.
Filmfare Magazine
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
For over five decades now, Filmfare has been the official handbook on everything Bollywood for the...
Dance Me a Song: Astaire, Balanchine, Kelly and the American Film Musical
Book
Dance Me a Song traces the history of famous Hollywood collaborations as the palimpsest of dance,...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2019 (Updated Sep 20, 2019)
The crown jewel in Fox's X-Men saga
Logan is easily one of the best comic book movies out there.
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
