Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
The opening credits for Unhinged paint a pretty bleak and horrific snapshot of human life, just to get us in the mood for what’s to come. Footage of actual road rage incidents, supermarket disagreements and brawls, cars crashing into each other, all while recordings of news readers talk about how stressed and angry we all are these days. I think that in the current climate, we can all appreciate just how angry the world seems to have become these last few months, and some of these scenes really hit home.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Computers have become such a mainstay of modern life that few of us even stop to imagine just how much of our lives are affected by them. In the course of a standard day, everything from the lights at the corner, offices, banks, and even the cars we drive are all governed in some ways by computers.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
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.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Brian Eno recommended Early Works by Steve Reich in Music (curated)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Sep 8, 2019
A nice vampire surprise!
A vampire "plague" has killed off most of the human population, only about 5% or less now survives. (This film was made in 2009, so 2019 is the year this will happen!). Vampires now occupy our cities and have transformed the Earth to suit their needs including conduit walkways between buildings, underground tunnels they can walk so they don't have to walk through the sun and even automated cars which close off the sunlight so no risk of frying on the way to work.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Was it worth the wait?
It’s been fourteen years since Pixar introduced the likes of Violet, Dash, Robert and Helen Parr onto unsuspecting audiences across the globe. The quartet of superheroes swiftly became one of the studio’s best and most profitable films, with a loyal legion of fans begging for a sequel soon after.
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The A Plate (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The A Plate starts by introducing us to Jay Roth (Jacobsen) a car salesman working for Stevens Motors, Jay sees himself as one of the best in the business and uses his position to pick up woman but what he really wants it to be the manager which is currently filled by Dick Stevens (McMurray). When Dick gets cheating on his wife Candice (Barnes) she wants divorce which includes taking the dealership.
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/