Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Four Lions (2010) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
The fine between comedy and tragedy...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I can remember first hearing about this early in 2010, and was unsure as what to expect. On one hand this could have been a nasty hate film, mocking the wave of Muslim extremism which is taking a firm hold in this country, merely for the entertainment value, or this could be one of the important satires on the subject to date.
It was by far, without a shadow of doubt, the latter. Four Lions follows five amateur, lackluster Muslims from Sheffield who all believe that they are a primed terror cell on the frontline of the war against the infidels. Unfortunately for them, they are bunglers, whilst achieving the ability to create explosives, they have failed to control how and when it explodes! The plot culminates with an attempt to attack the London Marathon but it is a long road, taking our protagonists to the terror camps of Pakistan, and the town halls of Sheffield. This film is written and directed so expertly, it is literally frightening.
Morris and his pitch perfect cast deliver a film which so perfectly walks the razor wire tightrope between comedy and tragedy that every laugh is tinged with sadness or pity and every dark moment, seemingly comedic.
Is this a comedy? Decidedly not, but is this funny, and intentionally so? Yes. It's almost as if the laughs are out of sheer relief, as moments which should shock are delivered or followed up by some of the most profoundly realistic and yet ridiculous conversions.
The Lion King explanation for the war against the west; The almost horrifically callous 'Honey Monster' exchange as a police sniper may well have just shot an innocent civilian will stick in your mind. Let alone more simple humour, such as the eating of the sim cards to prevent tracking, which resembled the Catholic method of taking of the bread at mass.
But this was also about grooming: Grooming the audience to sympathise with a terror cell plotting in our midst was genius, whist having to watch the various methods employed within the group itself, leading to some of the films most poignant and tragic moments.
The disenfranchised Muslim population of this country have been captured so well, though portrayed on one hand as been dimwitted 'wanna-be terrorists', but on the other as real people, miss led with some of the most ridiculous concepts designed to reduce their lives to that of mediocrity in order to convince them to take so many others. This is a sympathetic peace movie in a time of great confusion and conflict.
Until now, United 93 was the film which had most summed up the dark times in which we live, following 9/11, but this is at least on par with it and is a great addition to a long and significant catalogue of topical anti-establishment films, such as M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.
Not just highly recommended, but a MUST SEE!
It was by far, without a shadow of doubt, the latter. Four Lions follows five amateur, lackluster Muslims from Sheffield who all believe that they are a primed terror cell on the frontline of the war against the infidels. Unfortunately for them, they are bunglers, whilst achieving the ability to create explosives, they have failed to control how and when it explodes! The plot culminates with an attempt to attack the London Marathon but it is a long road, taking our protagonists to the terror camps of Pakistan, and the town halls of Sheffield. This film is written and directed so expertly, it is literally frightening.
Morris and his pitch perfect cast deliver a film which so perfectly walks the razor wire tightrope between comedy and tragedy that every laugh is tinged with sadness or pity and every dark moment, seemingly comedic.
Is this a comedy? Decidedly not, but is this funny, and intentionally so? Yes. It's almost as if the laughs are out of sheer relief, as moments which should shock are delivered or followed up by some of the most profoundly realistic and yet ridiculous conversions.
The Lion King explanation for the war against the west; The almost horrifically callous 'Honey Monster' exchange as a police sniper may well have just shot an innocent civilian will stick in your mind. Let alone more simple humour, such as the eating of the sim cards to prevent tracking, which resembled the Catholic method of taking of the bread at mass.
But this was also about grooming: Grooming the audience to sympathise with a terror cell plotting in our midst was genius, whist having to watch the various methods employed within the group itself, leading to some of the films most poignant and tragic moments.
The disenfranchised Muslim population of this country have been captured so well, though portrayed on one hand as been dimwitted 'wanna-be terrorists', but on the other as real people, miss led with some of the most ridiculous concepts designed to reduce their lives to that of mediocrity in order to convince them to take so many others. This is a sympathetic peace movie in a time of great confusion and conflict.
Until now, United 93 was the film which had most summed up the dark times in which we live, following 9/11, but this is at least on par with it and is a great addition to a long and significant catalogue of topical anti-establishment films, such as M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.
Not just highly recommended, but a MUST SEE!
Darren (64 KP) rated Midnight Run (1988) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
An under-rated Masterpiece
Midnight Run is an Action/Comedy masterpiece.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Herself (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
I was keen to see this from recommendations I'd spotted online, but I wasn't overly enthused by the description... boy am I glad that the internet has great taste in movies.
Sandra is trying to keep her life together for her two daughters after she escapes from her abusive husband. Feeling isolated, overworked and living in a terrible situation Sandra has an off the wall idea that seems like a pipe dream. With the help of those around her she makes a true home for her girls and regains pieces of herself she'd lost.
Herself has some very serious topics in it, domestic violence and childhood trauma being at the top of the list, so that's definitely something to keep in mind if you're thinking of watching it. These topics are very effectively done and those feelings jumped out and affected me in a way I really didn't expect... I cried through a significant amount of the film, so probably just as well I was sitting in my living room and not a crowded cinema.
An interesting discovery on this was that one of the writers was Clare Dunne who plays the lead role of Sandra. I don't know what the process was between her and Malcolm Campbell but that involvement undoubtedly helps Dunne relay the true intent of the script, which I felt was incredibly well written.
Dunne's performance blew me away, barely minutes into the film you realise just what you're in for, it was such a brutal switch that my jaw nearly hit the floor. At every tense moment Dunne's acting is flawless and she conveys the emotions to a T. She does it so well that you get caught up in her anxiety, I found myself waiting for the bad things she was living in fear of and it was agonising... in a good way.
Along with her performance they use footage so well to help convey the story. When Sandra has an anxiety attack they cut clips into the scene, the quick changing back and forth between memory and present day brings the unsettling familiarity of panic and brings about a deeply emotional moment in the film. It might not conjure the exact same feeling as your own personal anxiety attack but it was closer than any other films I've seen it in.
Herself is a strong reminder that the vulnerable have the power within them to overcome anything through the right support and people who care. And sadly, it also reminds us that the system is a little messed up. I'm so pleased that I got the opportunity to see this, it's a well crafted film and I can say without a doubt it's already one of the highlights of this year's LFF.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/herself-movie-review.html
Sandra is trying to keep her life together for her two daughters after she escapes from her abusive husband. Feeling isolated, overworked and living in a terrible situation Sandra has an off the wall idea that seems like a pipe dream. With the help of those around her she makes a true home for her girls and regains pieces of herself she'd lost.
Herself has some very serious topics in it, domestic violence and childhood trauma being at the top of the list, so that's definitely something to keep in mind if you're thinking of watching it. These topics are very effectively done and those feelings jumped out and affected me in a way I really didn't expect... I cried through a significant amount of the film, so probably just as well I was sitting in my living room and not a crowded cinema.
An interesting discovery on this was that one of the writers was Clare Dunne who plays the lead role of Sandra. I don't know what the process was between her and Malcolm Campbell but that involvement undoubtedly helps Dunne relay the true intent of the script, which I felt was incredibly well written.
Dunne's performance blew me away, barely minutes into the film you realise just what you're in for, it was such a brutal switch that my jaw nearly hit the floor. At every tense moment Dunne's acting is flawless and she conveys the emotions to a T. She does it so well that you get caught up in her anxiety, I found myself waiting for the bad things she was living in fear of and it was agonising... in a good way.
Along with her performance they use footage so well to help convey the story. When Sandra has an anxiety attack they cut clips into the scene, the quick changing back and forth between memory and present day brings the unsettling familiarity of panic and brings about a deeply emotional moment in the film. It might not conjure the exact same feeling as your own personal anxiety attack but it was closer than any other films I've seen it in.
Herself is a strong reminder that the vulnerable have the power within them to overcome anything through the right support and people who care. And sadly, it also reminds us that the system is a little messed up. I'm so pleased that I got the opportunity to see this, it's a well crafted film and I can say without a doubt it's already one of the highlights of this year's LFF.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/herself-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A tiresome affair
The Fifty Shades phenomenon is something very hard to calculate. Yes, we know its sold millions of copies worldwide, but its readership is likely to be much higher. I’m sure someone somewhere will know another person who didn’t go out and buy the book, but just borrowed it.
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Jul 30, 2021
A Ton of Fun - Reminiscent of the first PIRATES film
Are you looking for a family friendly action/adventure/comedy that will be good entertainment for the entire family? Then look no further than the Disney Live Action film JUNGLE BOOK.
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guaranteeing a “safe passage through the anus”!
I’m neither a Marvel fan, nor (in particular) a Thor fan….. but I have to admit “Thor: Ragnarok” was brilliant from beginning to end.
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been travelling the universe in search of… stuff… (I neither remember nor care)… but returns to his home planet of Asgard with a dire warning of impending ‘Raganrok’: this being the ‘End of Days’ for Asgard. But he finds the court engaged in serious leisure time!
ragnarok4
“Shave and a hair cut… two stripes”
Things go from bad to worse when Hela (Cate Blanchett, “Carol“) – someone with more than a passing relationship to Thor – arrives with a mission to assume the throne. Teamed uncomfortably with half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston, “High Rise”), the brothers get cast millions of light years away to a planet lorded over by a ‘grand master’ (a lovely performance, that I will leave anonymous here) who pits new gladiators in an arena against his latest champion. You’ll never guess who his champion is? Well, OK (cos the trailer gives it away)… he’s big and green!
ragnarok2
The grand master’s champion. Opponents are green with envy.
The film’s script is hilarious. It generates an enormous volume of entertainment with laugh-out loud moments throughout; the unforseen involvement of other Marvel characters; some startling cameos all mixed with the usual brand of spectacular fights and action. Some of the action is surprising: a real eye-opener you might say.
ragnarok3
Tessa Thompson as the Valkyrie in full flight.
The lead cast (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Blanchett and Ruffalo) all perform admirably and are joined by heavyweight cameos from Anthony Hopkins (“Westworld”) and Idris Elba (“Bastille Day“) reprising their roles from “Thor: The Dark World”. Particularly impressive is Tessa Thompson (“Creed“) as Thor’s Valkyrie warrior side-kick and Karl Urban (“Star Trek: Into Darkness“) as the turn-coat Asgardian Skurge.
ragnarok5
The real McCoy. Karl Urban as the Skurge of Asgard.
Directed by young New Zealander Taika Waititi (behind last year’s successful indie hit “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”) it’s a breath of fresh air for the Thor franchise, more similar to the style of “Guardians of the Galaxy” rather than the previous films in the series. Waititi also saves all the best comedy lines for himself as the ‘rock warrior’ character Korg: his New Zealand twang delivering just side-splitting dialogue.
Hela (Cate Blanchett)
Hela may be a super-villain, but she still hasn’t learned to hold a hammer by the right end.
As with most Marvel films, its a little bit flabby in places, running to 130 minutes: some of the dialogue, particularly scenes between Hemsworth and Ruffalo, feel like they needed tightening up in the editing suite. This time of course includes the scrolling of endless teams of visual effect artists in the closing titles which – naturally – 90% of the audience stay for to see if there are any “monkeys“. In fact,there are two: one fairly early on; the other right at the end. (To be honest, I thought neither of them was particularly worth waiting for).
However overall the movie is highly recommended for a fun night out at the cinema.
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been travelling the universe in search of… stuff… (I neither remember nor care)… but returns to his home planet of Asgard with a dire warning of impending ‘Raganrok’: this being the ‘End of Days’ for Asgard. But he finds the court engaged in serious leisure time!
ragnarok4
“Shave and a hair cut… two stripes”
Things go from bad to worse when Hela (Cate Blanchett, “Carol“) – someone with more than a passing relationship to Thor – arrives with a mission to assume the throne. Teamed uncomfortably with half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston, “High Rise”), the brothers get cast millions of light years away to a planet lorded over by a ‘grand master’ (a lovely performance, that I will leave anonymous here) who pits new gladiators in an arena against his latest champion. You’ll never guess who his champion is? Well, OK (cos the trailer gives it away)… he’s big and green!
ragnarok2
The grand master’s champion. Opponents are green with envy.
The film’s script is hilarious. It generates an enormous volume of entertainment with laugh-out loud moments throughout; the unforseen involvement of other Marvel characters; some startling cameos all mixed with the usual brand of spectacular fights and action. Some of the action is surprising: a real eye-opener you might say.
ragnarok3
Tessa Thompson as the Valkyrie in full flight.
The lead cast (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Blanchett and Ruffalo) all perform admirably and are joined by heavyweight cameos from Anthony Hopkins (“Westworld”) and Idris Elba (“Bastille Day“) reprising their roles from “Thor: The Dark World”. Particularly impressive is Tessa Thompson (“Creed“) as Thor’s Valkyrie warrior side-kick and Karl Urban (“Star Trek: Into Darkness“) as the turn-coat Asgardian Skurge.
ragnarok5
The real McCoy. Karl Urban as the Skurge of Asgard.
Directed by young New Zealander Taika Waititi (behind last year’s successful indie hit “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”) it’s a breath of fresh air for the Thor franchise, more similar to the style of “Guardians of the Galaxy” rather than the previous films in the series. Waititi also saves all the best comedy lines for himself as the ‘rock warrior’ character Korg: his New Zealand twang delivering just side-splitting dialogue.
Hela (Cate Blanchett)
Hela may be a super-villain, but she still hasn’t learned to hold a hammer by the right end.
As with most Marvel films, its a little bit flabby in places, running to 130 minutes: some of the dialogue, particularly scenes between Hemsworth and Ruffalo, feel like they needed tightening up in the editing suite. This time of course includes the scrolling of endless teams of visual effect artists in the closing titles which – naturally – 90% of the audience stay for to see if there are any “monkeys“. In fact,there are two: one fairly early on; the other right at the end. (To be honest, I thought neither of them was particularly worth waiting for).
However overall the movie is highly recommended for a fun night out at the cinema.
Video & TV Cast Pro for LG Smart TV: Stream Movies
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Watch any web-video, online movie, livestream or live tv show on your LG Smart TV or Blu-ray Player....