Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Destroyer (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It feels like Nicole Kidman has been making a big screen comeback recently. I enjoyed Aquaman and The Upside, we're also looking forward to seeing her in Boy Erased next month. I was aware that this one was going to be a little... different shall we say? But I hadn't read up much about it. It's a very surprising role to see her in.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
May 22, 2019
Gore heavy police procedural
This is the first book in the Rizzoli and Isles thriller series, apparently there is a TV series based off this but I’ve never seen it so went into this blind. Isles does not appear as a character in this book and even RIzzoli is more of a secondary character.
Catherine Cordell is a skilled surgeon working in Boston where she fled to following a horrific attack two years ago. Although she killed her attacker her exterior confidence hides the continued fear the trauma has instilled in her everyday life. When the impossible seems to occur and the killer returns to stalk her, Detective Moore is determined to protect along with fellow officer Rizzoli.
The villain and what he does is full on terrifying and creepy as hell (just the way I like them.) However if you are in any way squeamish and don’t like a lot of blood and gore you should probably avoid this book. There is a lot of graphic descriptions of injuries of people coming into an emergency room, surgery and torture. Rape is also a central theme and again descriptions can be disturbing so be warned.
This felt like a very solid police procedural book. The style will be familiar with Criminal Minds fans in that you get to see a bit behind the curtain. I didn’t feel there was a lot of puzzling mystery, but you were swept along in the investigation to find the unsub.
My main hope with this series is Rizzoli becomes a bit more human, in this book I just wanted to slap her for being such a cow to both victims and colleagues. Her constant internal moaning about how bad she is treated because she’s a woman made me laugh, it seemed more to be just because she isn’t a very nice person. She doesn't come across as a very good cop at all, poor at doing interviews, following procedure, working as a team. Meanwhile Moore was a much more sympathetic character.
Looking forward to seeing where the series goes from here.
Catherine Cordell is a skilled surgeon working in Boston where she fled to following a horrific attack two years ago. Although she killed her attacker her exterior confidence hides the continued fear the trauma has instilled in her everyday life. When the impossible seems to occur and the killer returns to stalk her, Detective Moore is determined to protect along with fellow officer Rizzoli.
The villain and what he does is full on terrifying and creepy as hell (just the way I like them.) However if you are in any way squeamish and don’t like a lot of blood and gore you should probably avoid this book. There is a lot of graphic descriptions of injuries of people coming into an emergency room, surgery and torture. Rape is also a central theme and again descriptions can be disturbing so be warned.
This felt like a very solid police procedural book. The style will be familiar with Criminal Minds fans in that you get to see a bit behind the curtain. I didn’t feel there was a lot of puzzling mystery, but you were swept along in the investigation to find the unsub.
My main hope with this series is Rizzoli becomes a bit more human, in this book I just wanted to slap her for being such a cow to both victims and colleagues. Her constant internal moaning about how bad she is treated because she’s a woman made me laugh, it seemed more to be just because she isn’t a very nice person. She doesn't come across as a very good cop at all, poor at doing interviews, following procedure, working as a team. Meanwhile Moore was a much more sympathetic character.
Looking forward to seeing where the series goes from here.
JT (287 KP) rated The Hunt (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The Hunt is a gripping yet dramatic look at the persecution of one man in a small Danish town, after he is accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stand by Me (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
A Modern Classic
Remember the days of your youth, when Summer was just one long vacation - where you and your buddies would take off and let the day unfold as it presents itself - no schedules, no meetings and the only clock was the rising and setting of the sun?
Such, nostalgic, feelings and remembrances is at the heart of the 1986 Rob Reiner film, STAND BY ME, a "coming of age" tale of boys on the cusp of leaving boyhood behind.
Based on a Stephen King novella, STAND BY ME follows the adventures of Gordie LaChance and his pals Vern, Teddy and Chris as they set off to find the body of a young man who has been missing - and presumed dead.
But it is not the destination that is at the heart of this story, it is the journey - and what a journey, filled with heart, it is. We join in with these 4 boys as the walk towards the unknown - both physically and (more importantly) metaphorically, growing and developing in front of our eyes.
Credit for this film has to start with Director Rob Reiner - mainly known before this film as "Meathead" on the classic TV Series ALL IN THE FAMILY. This was Reiner's 5th film as a Director and, I believe, announced his "arrival" as a signature Director. Look at the run Reiner had. In order, he directed THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, STAND BY ME, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY and A FEW GOOD MEN. I would also include THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI in this list, but they come after the misfire NORTH. But, 9 out of 10 good films is quite the track record.
What struck me in this showing of the film (seen on the big screen for the first time by me since 1986) is the contrast between intimacy and enormity. When the boys are on their trek, Reiner shoots a good deal of these scenes from a distance - showing how small these boys are in comparison to the world around them. But, when the scene is an intimate, dialogue, character-driven scene, he tightens his shots right into the faces of the 4 leads, creating an intimacy that draws us into these characters.
The other credit has to go to whomever cast this film - for the 4 unknown boys that were cast in the leads were well cast, indeed.
Start with Wil Wheaton as Gordie. Gordie has spent his whole life in the shadow of his over-achieving "All American" brother, trying to be noticed for who - and what - he is, an author, not an athlete. Wheaton brings the right combination of determination, intelligence and vulnerability to Gordie, giving us a protagonist we can root for. Jerry O'Connell was funnier than I remembered as the "fat kid", Vern, who just wants to play by the rules, but always goes along with his friends, despite his better judgement. Corey Feldman has never been better than he is here as Teddy Duchamp - a young boy with a troubled home life - and a troubled life - that is trying to control, and understand, the rage inside of him.
But it is the work of the late River Phoenix as Chris Chambers, the "leader" of this group that really shines. He is the glue that keeps this foursome together, strong but showing a vulnerability and a "realistic" view of what it is to be a misunderstood youth - the hurt that comes with that and the walls that one puts up to combat that. Phoenix commands the screen in every scene that he is in and when the scene is just Phoenix and Wheaton, you are drawn into a real friendship.
I was surprised, at this viewing, at how serious this film is - and the topics that this film addresses - but those moments are wisely balanced by scenes of action/adventure (like the train tressel scene), comedy (like the the "lard-ass" pie eating scene) and "other" moments (the leaches!).
This is one of those films that is getting better with time - it is aging well - and, rightfully, fits in the category of "Modern Classic".
Letter Grade: A
Such, nostalgic, feelings and remembrances is at the heart of the 1986 Rob Reiner film, STAND BY ME, a "coming of age" tale of boys on the cusp of leaving boyhood behind.
Based on a Stephen King novella, STAND BY ME follows the adventures of Gordie LaChance and his pals Vern, Teddy and Chris as they set off to find the body of a young man who has been missing - and presumed dead.
But it is not the destination that is at the heart of this story, it is the journey - and what a journey, filled with heart, it is. We join in with these 4 boys as the walk towards the unknown - both physically and (more importantly) metaphorically, growing and developing in front of our eyes.
Credit for this film has to start with Director Rob Reiner - mainly known before this film as "Meathead" on the classic TV Series ALL IN THE FAMILY. This was Reiner's 5th film as a Director and, I believe, announced his "arrival" as a signature Director. Look at the run Reiner had. In order, he directed THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, STAND BY ME, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY and A FEW GOOD MEN. I would also include THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI in this list, but they come after the misfire NORTH. But, 9 out of 10 good films is quite the track record.
What struck me in this showing of the film (seen on the big screen for the first time by me since 1986) is the contrast between intimacy and enormity. When the boys are on their trek, Reiner shoots a good deal of these scenes from a distance - showing how small these boys are in comparison to the world around them. But, when the scene is an intimate, dialogue, character-driven scene, he tightens his shots right into the faces of the 4 leads, creating an intimacy that draws us into these characters.
The other credit has to go to whomever cast this film - for the 4 unknown boys that were cast in the leads were well cast, indeed.
Start with Wil Wheaton as Gordie. Gordie has spent his whole life in the shadow of his over-achieving "All American" brother, trying to be noticed for who - and what - he is, an author, not an athlete. Wheaton brings the right combination of determination, intelligence and vulnerability to Gordie, giving us a protagonist we can root for. Jerry O'Connell was funnier than I remembered as the "fat kid", Vern, who just wants to play by the rules, but always goes along with his friends, despite his better judgement. Corey Feldman has never been better than he is here as Teddy Duchamp - a young boy with a troubled home life - and a troubled life - that is trying to control, and understand, the rage inside of him.
But it is the work of the late River Phoenix as Chris Chambers, the "leader" of this group that really shines. He is the glue that keeps this foursome together, strong but showing a vulnerability and a "realistic" view of what it is to be a misunderstood youth - the hurt that comes with that and the walls that one puts up to combat that. Phoenix commands the screen in every scene that he is in and when the scene is just Phoenix and Wheaton, you are drawn into a real friendship.
I was surprised, at this viewing, at how serious this film is - and the topics that this film addresses - but those moments are wisely balanced by scenes of action/adventure (like the train tressel scene), comedy (like the the "lard-ass" pie eating scene) and "other" moments (the leaches!).
This is one of those films that is getting better with time - it is aging well - and, rightfully, fits in the category of "Modern Classic".
Letter Grade: A
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Bride of Chucky (1998) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
One of those 'guilty pleasures' you here so much about
Bride of Chucky is a prime example of what Horror films were like in the aftermath of Scream.
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV 😂
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV 😂
Lee (2222 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Quentin Tarantino is known for his lengthy, self-indulgent movies - some of which I've loved, some not so much. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a nostalgic homage to 1960s Hollywood and, at 2 hours 41 minutes, it is certainly lengthy and self-indulgent. But, despite some outstanding performances, it's probably at least an hour too long, and proved to be a real test of my patience and endurance.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Elisabeth Moss - excellent performance (1 more)
Slowly creeping tension - clever camera work
Have you seen "The Invisible Man"?
Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is trapped in a highly controlling and violent relationship with technology mogul Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Escaping from his fortress-like home, she lives in fear of his retribution. So she is much relieved, if a little surprised, at the report of his suicide. Now living with old friend James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid), Cecilia can finally start to relax. But as strange things start to happen, is the ghost of Griffin back to haunt her? Or is it really all in her rapidly disintegrating mind, as her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and James suspect?
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Perfection (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Dumpster fire!
Can someone please, please tell me when Netflix is going to make a good movie? Every once in a while I read a lot of gushing reviews for a Netflix made film (which means the studios didn't want it) and I give it a try.
For the record, most of them are average or below average, like Bird Box, and everyone is talking about them I suppose because it is something new. I have seen a lot of movies in my life, so I guess I am somewhat jaded or expect more or the unusual to make me interested. I am not one of those people who says "they don't make them like they used to" since I do seem to find very good recent movies as well, but not this piece of shite that's for sure.
There were shades of Black Swan, Suspiria, Hostel and even I Spit on Your Grave in this film; however, the plot twists are so ridiculous here there were moments I gasped in aughter when I'm sure I was supposed to be disgusted.
Nothing extreme I can see in a movie bothers me anymore, so the gruesome bits weren't the problem. The horrid, contrite screenplay and bad over acting were.
If anyone seriously is considering watching this film please let me know and I will seriously give you 1000 other movies which you should watch instead.
I think I would say watching your TV turned off for 90 minutes would be more entertaining than watching The Perfection.
For the record, most of them are average or below average, like Bird Box, and everyone is talking about them I suppose because it is something new. I have seen a lot of movies in my life, so I guess I am somewhat jaded or expect more or the unusual to make me interested. I am not one of those people who says "they don't make them like they used to" since I do seem to find very good recent movies as well, but not this piece of shite that's for sure.
There were shades of Black Swan, Suspiria, Hostel and even I Spit on Your Grave in this film; however, the plot twists are so ridiculous here there were moments I gasped in aughter when I'm sure I was supposed to be disgusted.
Nothing extreme I can see in a movie bothers me anymore, so the gruesome bits weren't the problem. The horrid, contrite screenplay and bad over acting were.
If anyone seriously is considering watching this film please let me know and I will seriously give you 1000 other movies which you should watch instead.
I think I would say watching your TV turned off for 90 minutes would be more entertaining than watching The Perfection.
