Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Another Round (2020) in Movies
Jun 30, 2021
Mads Mikkelsen. The rest of the ensemble cast are great too. (1 more)
Momentum of the movie is great.
A cure for a mid-life crisis? It’s worth a shot!
After giving the most emotional and heartbreaking Oscar speech of the recent awards, Thomas Vinterberg's International Feature winner is now in UK cinemas. "Druk" (Danish for "Binge Drinking") is in the Danish language with subtitles: but don't let that put you off.
Positives:
- Mads Mikkelsen delivers a stunning performance. He really delivers the goods. He was nominated for a BAFTA for the role but missed out on the Oscar nomination. This feels unjust. I would have personally swapped out Steven Yeun for this performance by Mads.
- Thomas Vinterberg was justly nominated for Best Director at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars. The movie never lacks momentum from beginning to end. I was thoroughly entertained.
- It's quite unusual to see a 'buddy movie' concerning a group of men that's not a cop film. My wife described it as a '"chick-flick for blokes". I guess you need to go to "The Hangover" films to find an equivalent. (That of course also centres around alcohol. Are we really that shallow?!)
Negatives:
- Up until a "church scene", I thought the story was well-structured and coherent. But I'm not quite sure what message the finale of the movie was trying to send. Yes, it's fun and full of energy. And Mikkelsen's dancing is both bizarre and entertaining. But given all that's gone before, is it a "what the hell, life is for living and alcohol is part of that" statement? I was unsure.
Summary Thoughts on "Another Round": The movie is dedicated to "Ada" - Vinterberg's daughter, who was supposed to be acting in the film but tragically died in a car crash just four days into shooting. (Hence his emotional Oscar acceptance). The fact he managed to finish the movie at all is amazing. But the fact it's so good is a great memorial to her.
It's billed as a "comedy drama" but, although there are comic moments, it leans heavily on the "drama". The Scandinavians in general tend to drink as much, if not more, than the British do. So this is a reminder of both the benefits and risks of the evil drink.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies her - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/30/another-round-cure-for-a-mid-life-crisis-its-worth-a-shot/ , You can also check out my new Tiktok channel @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Mads Mikkelsen delivers a stunning performance. He really delivers the goods. He was nominated for a BAFTA for the role but missed out on the Oscar nomination. This feels unjust. I would have personally swapped out Steven Yeun for this performance by Mads.
- Thomas Vinterberg was justly nominated for Best Director at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars. The movie never lacks momentum from beginning to end. I was thoroughly entertained.
- It's quite unusual to see a 'buddy movie' concerning a group of men that's not a cop film. My wife described it as a '"chick-flick for blokes". I guess you need to go to "The Hangover" films to find an equivalent. (That of course also centres around alcohol. Are we really that shallow?!)
Negatives:
- Up until a "church scene", I thought the story was well-structured and coherent. But I'm not quite sure what message the finale of the movie was trying to send. Yes, it's fun and full of energy. And Mikkelsen's dancing is both bizarre and entertaining. But given all that's gone before, is it a "what the hell, life is for living and alcohol is part of that" statement? I was unsure.
Summary Thoughts on "Another Round": The movie is dedicated to "Ada" - Vinterberg's daughter, who was supposed to be acting in the film but tragically died in a car crash just four days into shooting. (Hence his emotional Oscar acceptance). The fact he managed to finish the movie at all is amazing. But the fact it's so good is a great memorial to her.
It's billed as a "comedy drama" but, although there are comic moments, it leans heavily on the "drama". The Scandinavians in general tend to drink as much, if not more, than the British do. So this is a reminder of both the benefits and risks of the evil drink.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies her - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/30/another-round-cure-for-a-mid-life-crisis-its-worth-a-shot/ , You can also check out my new Tiktok channel @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019 (Updated Sep 2, 2019)
Yikes
I, like many of you, really like comic books. So in this day and age, where films like Elektra, The Spirit, Catwoman, Daredevil etc, are just a horrible joyless memory, it takes something truly special to make you nearly hate comic book movies forevermore.
Suicide Squad is that something truly special.
After being saddened by the underwhelming Batman vs Superman, I had my hopes set high for SS. The trailers looked fantastic. I couldn't wait to see characters such as Katana, Enchantress, Harley Quinn, Deadshot etc, finally have their moment in the spotlight. I couldn't wait to see what Jared Leto brought to the table as The Joker. I was ready to be shown that BvS was a one off misstep, and that the DCEU properties were ready to take their place amongst comic book film royalty.
I'm almost cross at myself for being so very silly.
Where to begin - I guess characters.
I have no problem with Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I thought she was fine. The script is terrible in places but that's not her fault.
Another character that suffers from the script is Deadshot. Again, I have no problem with Will Smith (except that the movie threatens to become the Will Smith show on occasion), but the script turns him into a tool to spout one liners and name check the movies title.
Enchantress is just a weird gyrating CGI embarrassment that is given little room to do anything else.
Everyone else is a waste - Katana, Killer Croc, Diablo - all so boring.
Same goes for Boomerang (although I get the feeling that Jai Courtney genuinely tried his best with what he was given)
And then there's The Joker. I can't honestly tell whether I liked him or not - he was hardly in it! Although his brief appearance was more interesting than the rest of the film for sure.
The whole film is set to a soundtrack of 'cool' rock songs that I would have put on a mixtape when I was 12, and they're relentless. It feels like every two minutes another song is obnoxiously blasted into my poor eyes and ears.
The film feels like one huge trailer. It's edited and chopped up jarringly, and it's a film that evidently has suffered from re shoots and studio meddling.
I refuse to believe that the same man who directed the damn good 'Fury' is solely responsible for this car crash.
Hopefully, James Gunn can keep the suits at bay and deliver a home run with the next attempt...
Suicide Squad is that something truly special.
After being saddened by the underwhelming Batman vs Superman, I had my hopes set high for SS. The trailers looked fantastic. I couldn't wait to see characters such as Katana, Enchantress, Harley Quinn, Deadshot etc, finally have their moment in the spotlight. I couldn't wait to see what Jared Leto brought to the table as The Joker. I was ready to be shown that BvS was a one off misstep, and that the DCEU properties were ready to take their place amongst comic book film royalty.
I'm almost cross at myself for being so very silly.
Where to begin - I guess characters.
I have no problem with Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I thought she was fine. The script is terrible in places but that's not her fault.
Another character that suffers from the script is Deadshot. Again, I have no problem with Will Smith (except that the movie threatens to become the Will Smith show on occasion), but the script turns him into a tool to spout one liners and name check the movies title.
Enchantress is just a weird gyrating CGI embarrassment that is given little room to do anything else.
Everyone else is a waste - Katana, Killer Croc, Diablo - all so boring.
Same goes for Boomerang (although I get the feeling that Jai Courtney genuinely tried his best with what he was given)
And then there's The Joker. I can't honestly tell whether I liked him or not - he was hardly in it! Although his brief appearance was more interesting than the rest of the film for sure.
The whole film is set to a soundtrack of 'cool' rock songs that I would have put on a mixtape when I was 12, and they're relentless. It feels like every two minutes another song is obnoxiously blasted into my poor eyes and ears.
The film feels like one huge trailer. It's edited and chopped up jarringly, and it's a film that evidently has suffered from re shoots and studio meddling.
I refuse to believe that the same man who directed the damn good 'Fury' is solely responsible for this car crash.
Hopefully, James Gunn can keep the suits at bay and deliver a home run with the next attempt...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Christmas Chronicles (2018) in Movies
Nov 25, 2018
Kurt Russell is Santa Claus!!!
My wife and daughter started watching Christmas movies a few weeks back now, far too early in my opinion. But when the trailer first came out for The Christmas Chronicles on Netflix, it definitely got me in the Christmas spirit and I just couldn't wait to see it. So, on a lazy Sunday morning, cold and wet outside, all snuggled up in bed and with a cat and a dog spread out on top of us, we decided to watch it. Perfect.
Teddy and Kate Pierce have had a tough year. We see home movies of most of their Christmas's growing up, showing the good fun times with their parents. And then we see this Christmas. They've lost their dad, mum going out to work while Kate helps around the house and Teddy going out with friends, stealing cars and getting into trouble. When mum has to work on Christmas Eve night, the kids are left home alone and Christmas looks like being very different from previous years. While Kate watches those old Christmas movies, she notices a mysterious arm briefly appearing in the corner of the screen and is convinced they'd captured Santa Claus on camera. Enlisting the help of brother Teddy, they decide to try and catch Santa on camera once more. Things don't end up going quite according to plan though and they end up crash landing with Santa somewhere in Chicago. The reindeer came loose during their descent and are lost in the city. Santa's hat, which helps him zip around and teleport down chimneys, also blew off during the fall. Christmas is in jeopardy and Santa and his two new helpers need to fix it. We get car chases, badass little elves and Santa in jail wearing shades while playing the piano and belting out Christmas tunes, accompanied by backing singers!
As with any Christmas film that's introducing us to a new Santa and a new vision of the world he lives in, it takes a little while to get used to. Luckily, this one doesn't take long, and Kurt Russell is a very believable and enjoyable Santa who doesn't do ho-ho-ho's. The one thing that worried me from the trailer were the elves, who looked like they were going to be annoying little CGI characters. Luckily, they're used sparingly but effectively and were a lot of fun.
The whole Christmas in jeopardy plot is a fairly familiar one, having been done time and again over the years. But I actually really enjoyed this latest spin. Good fun, a bit of emotional stuff at the end and a nice surprise cameo to finish things off. Definitely got me in the Christmas spirit
Teddy and Kate Pierce have had a tough year. We see home movies of most of their Christmas's growing up, showing the good fun times with their parents. And then we see this Christmas. They've lost their dad, mum going out to work while Kate helps around the house and Teddy going out with friends, stealing cars and getting into trouble. When mum has to work on Christmas Eve night, the kids are left home alone and Christmas looks like being very different from previous years. While Kate watches those old Christmas movies, she notices a mysterious arm briefly appearing in the corner of the screen and is convinced they'd captured Santa Claus on camera. Enlisting the help of brother Teddy, they decide to try and catch Santa on camera once more. Things don't end up going quite according to plan though and they end up crash landing with Santa somewhere in Chicago. The reindeer came loose during their descent and are lost in the city. Santa's hat, which helps him zip around and teleport down chimneys, also blew off during the fall. Christmas is in jeopardy and Santa and his two new helpers need to fix it. We get car chases, badass little elves and Santa in jail wearing shades while playing the piano and belting out Christmas tunes, accompanied by backing singers!
As with any Christmas film that's introducing us to a new Santa and a new vision of the world he lives in, it takes a little while to get used to. Luckily, this one doesn't take long, and Kurt Russell is a very believable and enjoyable Santa who doesn't do ho-ho-ho's. The one thing that worried me from the trailer were the elves, who looked like they were going to be annoying little CGI characters. Luckily, they're used sparingly but effectively and were a lot of fun.
The whole Christmas in jeopardy plot is a fairly familiar one, having been done time and again over the years. But I actually really enjoyed this latest spin. Good fun, a bit of emotional stuff at the end and a nice surprise cameo to finish things off. Definitely got me in the Christmas spirit
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Dec 26, 2018
It's easy to draw comparisons between Bird Box and one of this years biggest hits, A Quiet Place. As Malorie (Sandra Bullock), guides two young children towards a boat, all three of them blindfolded and terrified of the consequences should they remove them, the similarities with the post apocalyptic themes of A Quiet Place are clear. In that movie, you couldn't make a sound for fear of drawing the attentions of the ominous killers, while in this one you're unable to use your eyes to look at the world around you.
But Bird Box does what AQP didn't, by going back in time 5 years to see how the apocalypse all came about. A pregnant Malorie is visiting the hospital for a scan, along with sister Jessica (Sarah Paulson), while news reports detail events unfolding throughout the world. Something is causing thousands of people to suddenly commit suicide, and it has found its way to American shores. As Malorie and Jessica leave the hospital, everything around them descends into panic, chaos and destruction. Cars crash, people throw themselves in front of oncoming cars and thousands of others are running to escape from who knows what. As her sister meets an untimely death, the heavily pregnant Malorie is helped into a nearby house where a large number of people have already found refuge.
We manage to catch our breath for a short while, while the survivors piece together what has happened, offering their theories. As one of them explains - "Humanity has been judged and we've been found wanting. They go by different names. You got world religion and mythology that's full of mentions of demons or spirit creatures. People who’ve seen these creatures almost always describe their encounter as with an entity who takes on the form of your worst fears, your deepest sadness or your greatest loss. It’s not bullshit. It’s real talk, it’s facts."
Life continues in the house for a while, with all the windows covered to prevent anyone from seeing something that might lead to their death. There's a tense trip to the supermarket for supplies, driving a car with blacked out windows and only a satnav to guide them, along with various dramas between the group. Every so often, we rejoin the future timeline, as Malorie and the children (referred to only as boy and girl) make their way along the river.
Bird Box is more of a slow burn than A Quiet Place, and we never actually see what is responsible for causing the suicides either, but I still found much to enjoy with it. And as we become fully immersed in the present timeline, following the blindfolded journey, things build to a tense and satisfying climax.
But Bird Box does what AQP didn't, by going back in time 5 years to see how the apocalypse all came about. A pregnant Malorie is visiting the hospital for a scan, along with sister Jessica (Sarah Paulson), while news reports detail events unfolding throughout the world. Something is causing thousands of people to suddenly commit suicide, and it has found its way to American shores. As Malorie and Jessica leave the hospital, everything around them descends into panic, chaos and destruction. Cars crash, people throw themselves in front of oncoming cars and thousands of others are running to escape from who knows what. As her sister meets an untimely death, the heavily pregnant Malorie is helped into a nearby house where a large number of people have already found refuge.
We manage to catch our breath for a short while, while the survivors piece together what has happened, offering their theories. As one of them explains - "Humanity has been judged and we've been found wanting. They go by different names. You got world religion and mythology that's full of mentions of demons or spirit creatures. People who’ve seen these creatures almost always describe their encounter as with an entity who takes on the form of your worst fears, your deepest sadness or your greatest loss. It’s not bullshit. It’s real talk, it’s facts."
Life continues in the house for a while, with all the windows covered to prevent anyone from seeing something that might lead to their death. There's a tense trip to the supermarket for supplies, driving a car with blacked out windows and only a satnav to guide them, along with various dramas between the group. Every so often, we rejoin the future timeline, as Malorie and the children (referred to only as boy and girl) make their way along the river.
Bird Box is more of a slow burn than A Quiet Place, and we never actually see what is responsible for causing the suicides either, but I still found much to enjoy with it. And as we become fully immersed in the present timeline, following the blindfolded journey, things build to a tense and satisfying climax.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 10 Cloverfield Lane starts as we see Michelle (Winstead) walking away from her married life with Ben only to find herself in a car accident. Upon waking up she finds her chained up in a bed as she desperately looks for a way out. Michelle’s capturer is Howard (Goodman) who claims to have saved her from an attack on America. Michelle isn’t the only other person in the bunker with Emmett (Gallagher Jr) also there.
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
Why oh why did they rename this film? I always want to call it Ford v Ferrari and several times I've said "Le Mans '66" and got odd looks so had to follow it up with the original.
Sports films are a weakness of mine, I love them but I'm not really sure why as I'm very much a spectator than a participant. Some racing meant this film got an automatic spot in the LFF planning... even with Matt Damon in it.
We've got another "based on true events" film on our hands and taking a glance at what car and racing experts have to say it seems that the events are fairly well done apart from some Hollywood tweaks here and there.
My main love in car movies is the roar of the engine, you can't beat that sound. I was nearly disappointed as almost instantly we get the engine sound but without the oomph, it was a really upsetting feeling. They did redeem themselves shortly after but I didn't enjoy that first moment at all. I did suffer with the audio in general being rather loud but I'm going to lay that firmly at the feet of old age rather than anything else.
There are a lot of people in this film, you only have to go for a scroll in the listings to see that. They add that busy feeling, the urgency of the project, the eagerness for the win. Some scenes feel crowded but they knew when to hold back and that meant that during the chaos we were still able to see some smaller and more powerful moments, moments that really were needed to break everything up.
Christian Bale did a Christian Bale for this film, after putting on all the weight for Vice he dropped it all again for his role as Ken Miles. Someone please cast him as a regular man, I worry about him. Ken's dedication to the sport and the skill really shines in Bale's performance, would we expect anything less from him? No, of course not. One of the most pleasing things is Bale saying "T'ra" in that accent, so soothing to listen to.
Matt Damon isn't a great love of mine, I'll watch his films with a disgruntled look on my face... Downsizing, that's for you... but... yes, there's a but, I thought he played Carroll Shelby exceptionally well, and without a hint of "Matt Damon" in it. This felt like the first time I've seen him in something where he's committed more to the role.
Great performances don't always mean great chemistry on screen but the two played off each other to great effect throughout. There's one fantastic scene (that you can see in one of the trailers) where they tussle together and it's such fun to watch, the full scene holds so much more than the trailer clips do.
Everything comes together in Le Mans '66 (*cough* Ford v Ferrari *cough*). The era is captured perfectly from all angles, the attention to detail on set looks spot on. The script isn't overly complicated and allowed the viewer (or at the very least me) to follow the story. The scenes on track are beautiful to watch with the truly impressive effect for weather and conditions being consistent in each shot. If you're asking me to find a quibble it would be on the crash effects, during one in particular the CGI seemed a little weak but you're drawn into the next shot fairly quickly so it's just a fleeting view.
Le Mans '66 was genuinely one of the highlights of the London Film Festival for me, Bale gives a stellar performance filled with humour and heart, Damon wowed me with his portrayal of Shelby and the way they managed to bring his character full circle... I didn't expect this to be such an emotional movie, I was taken aback by some of the moments and I genuinely can't wait to see this again.
Full review originally published on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/le-mans-66-movie-review.html
Sports films are a weakness of mine, I love them but I'm not really sure why as I'm very much a spectator than a participant. Some racing meant this film got an automatic spot in the LFF planning... even with Matt Damon in it.
We've got another "based on true events" film on our hands and taking a glance at what car and racing experts have to say it seems that the events are fairly well done apart from some Hollywood tweaks here and there.
My main love in car movies is the roar of the engine, you can't beat that sound. I was nearly disappointed as almost instantly we get the engine sound but without the oomph, it was a really upsetting feeling. They did redeem themselves shortly after but I didn't enjoy that first moment at all. I did suffer with the audio in general being rather loud but I'm going to lay that firmly at the feet of old age rather than anything else.
There are a lot of people in this film, you only have to go for a scroll in the listings to see that. They add that busy feeling, the urgency of the project, the eagerness for the win. Some scenes feel crowded but they knew when to hold back and that meant that during the chaos we were still able to see some smaller and more powerful moments, moments that really were needed to break everything up.
Christian Bale did a Christian Bale for this film, after putting on all the weight for Vice he dropped it all again for his role as Ken Miles. Someone please cast him as a regular man, I worry about him. Ken's dedication to the sport and the skill really shines in Bale's performance, would we expect anything less from him? No, of course not. One of the most pleasing things is Bale saying "T'ra" in that accent, so soothing to listen to.
Matt Damon isn't a great love of mine, I'll watch his films with a disgruntled look on my face... Downsizing, that's for you... but... yes, there's a but, I thought he played Carroll Shelby exceptionally well, and without a hint of "Matt Damon" in it. This felt like the first time I've seen him in something where he's committed more to the role.
Great performances don't always mean great chemistry on screen but the two played off each other to great effect throughout. There's one fantastic scene (that you can see in one of the trailers) where they tussle together and it's such fun to watch, the full scene holds so much more than the trailer clips do.
Everything comes together in Le Mans '66 (*cough* Ford v Ferrari *cough*). The era is captured perfectly from all angles, the attention to detail on set looks spot on. The script isn't overly complicated and allowed the viewer (or at the very least me) to follow the story. The scenes on track are beautiful to watch with the truly impressive effect for weather and conditions being consistent in each shot. If you're asking me to find a quibble it would be on the crash effects, during one in particular the CGI seemed a little weak but you're drawn into the next shot fairly quickly so it's just a fleeting view.
Le Mans '66 was genuinely one of the highlights of the London Film Festival for me, Bale gives a stellar performance filled with humour and heart, Damon wowed me with his portrayal of Shelby and the way they managed to bring his character full circle... I didn't expect this to be such an emotional movie, I was taken aback by some of the moments and I genuinely can't wait to see this again.
Full review originally published on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/le-mans-66-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Somewhat misleading but thrilling nonetheless
It’s best to start off this review as honest as possible. If you’re expecting a fully-fledged sequel or even a prequel to Matt Reeves’ brilliant monster horror, Cloverfield in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you’ll be very disappointed.
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Outliers (The Outliers, #1) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Wylie and Cassie aren't exactly best friends anymore. Even though Wylie's mom has died recently in a car crash, and Wylie's anxiety has ratcheted up so much she hasn't left the house in three weeks, the once inseparable pair have barely talked in over a week. But when Wylie gets a pleading text from Cassie saying she needs help, Wylie knows she will be there for her friend. Along with Cassie's boyfriend, Jasper, Wylie summons the courage to leave the house and follow Cassie's odd texts and clues to find her. But it doesn't take long to realize that Cassie might be in serious trouble. Even worse, it seems like trying to find Cassie is going to put Wylie, Jasper, and their families in danger, too.
This was an odd book. I was expecting a "run into obstacles finding my troubled best friend, maybe learn a lesson along the way" Young Adult tale, but the book takes a turn about halfway through and the tale becomes one of psychological depth, focusing on the story of the "outliers." <spoiler>These "outliers" are those who have a special range of emotional intelligence that allow them to have an uncanny ability to read people, emotions, and situations. It's Wylie's father, a scientist, who has discovered them as an unintentional result of his latest study, and it seems like everyone wants a piece of them and what they might mean. So, suddenly, the book is no longer simply about friendship, but crazy Government and private contractor entities and other shadowy forces who are after Wylie's dad's work. We meet a whole host of characters, none of whom we can really trust, and things (at least for me) go a little bit downhill from there. </spoiler>
That's not to say that this isn't a good book. It's interesting and almost compulsively readable, even with the bizarre plot. I'd probably have enjoyed it even more if I'd just been mentally prepared for the plot turn, honestly. Wylie is a fairly intriguing and likable character, and I found myself getting rather invested in Jasper. The other characters, as I said, are set up as untrustworthy purely by the nature of the plot, but they are fascinating in their own way. The idea of the outliers is a compelling one, even if the danger behind it seems a little forced. It's also hard not knowing exactly who to trust or how much of the narrative to believe - it's so much it gets a little frustrating at time. Still, it's clear by the end that McCreight has set this up as a series, and I'll certainly be reading the next book. The one is an entertaining, quick read if nothing else.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available for publication on 5/3/2016. You can read a review of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
This was an odd book. I was expecting a "run into obstacles finding my troubled best friend, maybe learn a lesson along the way" Young Adult tale, but the book takes a turn about halfway through and the tale becomes one of psychological depth, focusing on the story of the "outliers." <spoiler>These "outliers" are those who have a special range of emotional intelligence that allow them to have an uncanny ability to read people, emotions, and situations. It's Wylie's father, a scientist, who has discovered them as an unintentional result of his latest study, and it seems like everyone wants a piece of them and what they might mean. So, suddenly, the book is no longer simply about friendship, but crazy Government and private contractor entities and other shadowy forces who are after Wylie's dad's work. We meet a whole host of characters, none of whom we can really trust, and things (at least for me) go a little bit downhill from there. </spoiler>
That's not to say that this isn't a good book. It's interesting and almost compulsively readable, even with the bizarre plot. I'd probably have enjoyed it even more if I'd just been mentally prepared for the plot turn, honestly. Wylie is a fairly intriguing and likable character, and I found myself getting rather invested in Jasper. The other characters, as I said, are set up as untrustworthy purely by the nature of the plot, but they are fascinating in their own way. The idea of the outliers is a compelling one, even if the danger behind it seems a little forced. It's also hard not knowing exactly who to trust or how much of the narrative to believe - it's so much it gets a little frustrating at time. Still, it's clear by the end that McCreight has set this up as a series, and I'll certainly be reading the next book. The one is an entertaining, quick read if nothing else.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available for publication on 5/3/2016. You can read a review of this book and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.