Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Honestly Christian Bale should probably get an award for his commitment to a role. Gaining weight, doing exercises to get a thicker neck as well as studying up on all the policies and things so that he could ad-lib in character... just wow. This guy might just be a couple of parts crazy.
Being relatively fresh out of The Front Runner I was wondering how I was going to fair with another American political film. The two are very different beasts, The Front Runner is generally inoffensive and consistent drama while Vice tends to sway wildly between scenes of drama and some comedy.
Vice uses a lot of different ways to convey the story, it bleeps and blurs faces, it uses shots that avoid faces and candids with voiceovers, there are moments that go from 0-60 in no time at all. Visually as well as audibly it's chaos, and the timeline jumps around a fair bit, but at least that was easy to follow given the ageing that the characters go through.
As well as Bale's incredible performance a shout out has to go to Sam Rockwell. From Justin Hammer and Dixon in Three Billboards to Zaphod Beeblebrox he has a great range as a supporting actor.
I did like that at the beginning with regards to having to fill in the blanks of the story it said... "but we did our f***ng best." I'm sure it won't stop people saying that the film isn't accurately depicting history but I appreciate the fact it tries to stop them.
Vice is a crazy concotion of things and an assault on the senses, it has the wow factor though. Overall there are a lot of characters to follow. Some portrayed with stellar performances and others that fall by the wayside and left me confused about who they actually were. I think this just missed the mark for me, my knowledge of US politics being limited to what makes the news and social media means that again this is probably a film better suited for politics buffs and the American audiences.
There's a mid-credit scene which I did not stay for, I think this was probably a benefit to this review as by the sounds of it I would have left more confused after seeing it.
What you should do
If politics is your thing then you should definitely give it a go, you might have more luck with it than I did.
Being relatively fresh out of The Front Runner I was wondering how I was going to fair with another American political film. The two are very different beasts, The Front Runner is generally inoffensive and consistent drama while Vice tends to sway wildly between scenes of drama and some comedy.
Vice uses a lot of different ways to convey the story, it bleeps and blurs faces, it uses shots that avoid faces and candids with voiceovers, there are moments that go from 0-60 in no time at all. Visually as well as audibly it's chaos, and the timeline jumps around a fair bit, but at least that was easy to follow given the ageing that the characters go through.
As well as Bale's incredible performance a shout out has to go to Sam Rockwell. From Justin Hammer and Dixon in Three Billboards to Zaphod Beeblebrox he has a great range as a supporting actor.
I did like that at the beginning with regards to having to fill in the blanks of the story it said... "but we did our f***ng best." I'm sure it won't stop people saying that the film isn't accurately depicting history but I appreciate the fact it tries to stop them.
Vice is a crazy concotion of things and an assault on the senses, it has the wow factor though. Overall there are a lot of characters to follow. Some portrayed with stellar performances and others that fall by the wayside and left me confused about who they actually were. I think this just missed the mark for me, my knowledge of US politics being limited to what makes the news and social media means that again this is probably a film better suited for politics buffs and the American audiences.
There's a mid-credit scene which I did not stay for, I think this was probably a benefit to this review as by the sounds of it I would have left more confused after seeing it.
What you should do
If politics is your thing then you should definitely give it a go, you might have more luck with it than I did.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have no doubt that everything in this film was done for a reason, I'm just not sure that those things should have been allowed to make it into the final cut. The major problem for me was the constant chopping and changing of scenes. It was difficult to keep track. At least with other films recently we've been helped by the aging process of the characters, no such luck here.
I'm becoming more and more impressed with Steve Carell's dramatic acting. In a film that lots of people seemed to cry through the only moments that really moved me were performed by Carell. I liked the analytical side of his character and his focus on research, the moment where he reaches his turning point led to some particularly strong pieces for him.
Reading trivia about Timothée Chalamet in this it seems like we have a budding Christian Bale on our hands. He lost a lot of weight for the role and had consultants to ensure his acting as a drug addict was realistic. That was disappointing to read because I didn't find him to be particularly good in this role. That's causing me problems because I'm wondering why everyone is raving about him. I can't see it. While some of his moments are very realistic for the most part it feels like someone who's just acting a role... I know that sounds stupid but I know what I mean.
There are a lot of peripheral characters that come and go, they feel surplus to requirement. The girlfriend and scenes where Nic is with his mother seem wedged in. Had their scenes been taken out and they'd just left the mother's involvement at phone calls with the father then I think we'd have been left with a film that was more like we'd been promised of a father and son's journey. These extra characters just felt misleading.
People were deeply moved by this, more than a few people, myself included, in the showing were not. It suffered from length and some meandering story that I feel ultimately ruined something with a lot of potential.
What you should do
I feel like it's my duty to say that I'm in a minority when it comes to my feelings about this film. I wouldn't recommend it... but plenty of other people would.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would love the picture that Karen was working on in her workshop.
I'm becoming more and more impressed with Steve Carell's dramatic acting. In a film that lots of people seemed to cry through the only moments that really moved me were performed by Carell. I liked the analytical side of his character and his focus on research, the moment where he reaches his turning point led to some particularly strong pieces for him.
Reading trivia about Timothée Chalamet in this it seems like we have a budding Christian Bale on our hands. He lost a lot of weight for the role and had consultants to ensure his acting as a drug addict was realistic. That was disappointing to read because I didn't find him to be particularly good in this role. That's causing me problems because I'm wondering why everyone is raving about him. I can't see it. While some of his moments are very realistic for the most part it feels like someone who's just acting a role... I know that sounds stupid but I know what I mean.
There are a lot of peripheral characters that come and go, they feel surplus to requirement. The girlfriend and scenes where Nic is with his mother seem wedged in. Had their scenes been taken out and they'd just left the mother's involvement at phone calls with the father then I think we'd have been left with a film that was more like we'd been promised of a father and son's journey. These extra characters just felt misleading.
People were deeply moved by this, more than a few people, myself included, in the showing were not. It suffered from length and some meandering story that I feel ultimately ruined something with a lot of potential.
What you should do
I feel like it's my duty to say that I'm in a minority when it comes to my feelings about this film. I wouldn't recommend it... but plenty of other people would.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would love the picture that Karen was working on in her workshop.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019
Ice Cream
Le mans 66 aka Ford v Ferrari (the extended cut) is a blistering thrill ride equally perfect for both petrol heads and casual car lovers alike. I wont lie I was so excited to see this movie as I cant remember the last time I saw a trully great race movie and ill tell you now Le mans 66 does not disappoint. Primarily a film about pride, jealousy, ego, power and the need to be first and while the movie handles all that stuff perfectly it still manages to pack in so much more too. The art of driving, building/manufacturing, selling and owning cars is frequently and subtley liked to both war and sex in many diffrent ways but what it mostly boils down to is beating the other guy and looking good while doing it. Power is also portrayed perfectly and seeing how essentially its the little guys putting in all the work while the big men in charge reap all the rewards, fame and profit is trully disheartening but ever so relatable too. Story is constantly intresting starting slow and methodical letting you take in all the scenery and character depth before pushing you over the edge and giving you all its got, its trully exciting stuff and the attachment you gain for the main characters this way is thrilling by its self alone. Never ever predictable the film seems to swerve every time you think you know the route it will take always keeping you on the edge of your seat. Sound design is the best ive experienced all year with every tire rip, exhaust pop, speed barrier break, and narrow miss tearing though your ears and booming in your chest really putting you inside these beast machines. Visually its so god damn clean too and I kid you not I have no idea if all the effects are cgi or practical its that slick, with transitions that are immaculate making the racing scenes feel full of tension, danger and anxiety. Matt damon is solid as usual but it christian bale that really knocks it out the park here as a talented man who only strives to impress himself who would give up everything in a heart beat just to with his family (infact I think my favorite perfomance of his). Honestly this movie blew me away its thrilling, intresting, emotional, engaging, rewarding and the main characters are layerd each with thier own drive and goals. I simply can not recomend it enough and the only fault is my own for not seeing it in imax.
Brian Eno recommended Velvet Underground by The Velvet Underground in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Jul 5, 2022
The God of Thunder returns in Marvel Studios’ “Thor: Love and Thunder” and audiences find that Thor (Chris Hemsworth), has been doing missions with the Guardians of the Galaxy while he works himself back into shape and looks to find a new purpose in life.
Thor has been taking the spotlight in many of the missions and when multiple calls for help arise, Thor opts to go off on his own to address a particular call for help while the Guardians head on their way to help others.
It is learned that a being named Gorr (Christian Bale) has been killing Gods and Thor is eager to put a stop to him before he can do more damage. His mission soon puts him on a collision course with Gorr and The Mighty Thor (Natalie Portman) who being his ex and wielding his former weapon causes more than a few funny and awkward moments.
In a race to save captured children, rally the gods, and defeat Gorr, Thor, and Jane along with Korr (Taika Waititi) and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), embark on an epic adventure in a race against time.
While audiences have come to expect Marvel films to be epic cinematic events, this film is less on the over-the-top action sequences in favor of establishing new circumstances and challenges for the characters going forward.
While there are indeed action sequences and plenty of VFX, it does not have the action or intensity of several of the past films. What it does offer is a good mix of action and humor with enjoyable characters old and new and establishes scenarios for the MCU going forward.
Bale is very good as Gorr and you understand his motivations clearly as while evil, he has a degree of sympathy towards his character which makes his creepy performance all the more compelling.
The cast works very well with one another and there are two scenes in the credits which open up all kinds of possibilities for the future as we are told Thor will return before the credits even begin to roll.
The film also has considerable music and I joked to myself that Guns and Roses are going to be getting a big check due to their music being used frequently during the film as well as that of other artists which helps make the film an enjoyable outing from start to finish which should delight fans as we wait to see for the next cinematic offering from Marvel.
4 stars out of 5
Thor has been taking the spotlight in many of the missions and when multiple calls for help arise, Thor opts to go off on his own to address a particular call for help while the Guardians head on their way to help others.
It is learned that a being named Gorr (Christian Bale) has been killing Gods and Thor is eager to put a stop to him before he can do more damage. His mission soon puts him on a collision course with Gorr and The Mighty Thor (Natalie Portman) who being his ex and wielding his former weapon causes more than a few funny and awkward moments.
In a race to save captured children, rally the gods, and defeat Gorr, Thor, and Jane along with Korr (Taika Waititi) and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), embark on an epic adventure in a race against time.
While audiences have come to expect Marvel films to be epic cinematic events, this film is less on the over-the-top action sequences in favor of establishing new circumstances and challenges for the characters going forward.
While there are indeed action sequences and plenty of VFX, it does not have the action or intensity of several of the past films. What it does offer is a good mix of action and humor with enjoyable characters old and new and establishes scenarios for the MCU going forward.
Bale is very good as Gorr and you understand his motivations clearly as while evil, he has a degree of sympathy towards his character which makes his creepy performance all the more compelling.
The cast works very well with one another and there are two scenes in the credits which open up all kinds of possibilities for the future as we are told Thor will return before the credits even begin to roll.
The film also has considerable music and I joked to myself that Guns and Roses are going to be getting a big check due to their music being used frequently during the film as well as that of other artists which helps make the film an enjoyable outing from start to finish which should delight fans as we wait to see for the next cinematic offering from Marvel.
4 stars out of 5
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Public Enemies (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
The year is 1933 and bank robberies are at an all time high. John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd are at the top of their game. In the public eye, robbers are looked at as heroes instead of criminals. Dillinger enjoys the fruit of his labor to the fullest until the day Melvin Purvis is put in charge of the FBI division down in Chicago. Word traveled fast of how one of FBI's top agents (Purvis) took down Pretty Boy Floyd and hopes are high that he can help in the newly announced "war on crime." Once Purvis arrived in Chicago, the crime wave of the 30's that was on a steady uprise took a drastic decline. Bank robberies were never the same as Dillinger's friends began dropping like flies. As Dillinger's motto of not thinking about tomorrow since he's too busy enjoying today comes back to haunt him, he soon realizes that he can only hide for so long and that the feds will catch up with him sooner or later.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Angry Optimist: The Life and Times of Jon Stewart in Books
Sep 6, 2017
Insight into a beloved but flawed role model
So I’m a little ambivalent about this book. Jon Stewart took over at The Daily Show the same year I graduated high school. I was 16 and only starting to pay attention to politics. I was also raised quite conservative Christian – the pundit we listened to the most was Rush Limbaugh. And here was a man saying things that were the total opposite of what I’d been taught – but also things that resonated a lot more with me. Many years later, when The Daily Show and Jon Stewart were labeled the most trusted voices in news media, I had no trouble at all believing it. He not only knew how to speak to my generation, he also spoke for us. All the things we were thinking, he was out there shouting. He was our window into this grown up, corrupted world of politics, and we loved him for it.
Not to say he’s perfect. I’d heard – and Angry Optimist mentions – that he can occasionally be a rage-filled asshole. That the staff of The Daily Show has a woman problem. (As in, not enough of them, and can’t keep them.) So while I do admire the man, I am not blind to his flaws.
The book is interesting – I learned more about his early life and career – but nothing really game-changing. And perhaps that says something about Stewart. There aren’t really any skeletons in his closet, or scandalous stories. He’s just an angry Jewish comedian.
Rogak’s style of writing is easily consumed; I read the entire book in about three hours. Perhaps part of why I find it so anticlimactic is that she ends it with this sense of not knowing what Stewart might be up to next, and whether, if he does decide to leave The Daily Show eventually, if the show will end with him – and we know those answers now, three years after the book was published. Stewart has retired (barring the occasional appearance on Colbert’s show) and Trevor Noah is doing an admirable job of holding down the fort after Stewart’s exit. (With less anger, and a little more befuddlement, which is a fun change.) I was also a little disappointed that she mentions Stewart’s friendship with Anthony Weiner – but doesn’t say anything about how he took the ribbing from Stewart over Weiner’s rather unglamorous exit from politics.
I have also heard that the audio book is not good – apparently the narrator is boring. So I’d recommend the print book over the audio, if you choose to read it.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Not to say he’s perfect. I’d heard – and Angry Optimist mentions – that he can occasionally be a rage-filled asshole. That the staff of The Daily Show has a woman problem. (As in, not enough of them, and can’t keep them.) So while I do admire the man, I am not blind to his flaws.
The book is interesting – I learned more about his early life and career – but nothing really game-changing. And perhaps that says something about Stewart. There aren’t really any skeletons in his closet, or scandalous stories. He’s just an angry Jewish comedian.
Rogak’s style of writing is easily consumed; I read the entire book in about three hours. Perhaps part of why I find it so anticlimactic is that she ends it with this sense of not knowing what Stewart might be up to next, and whether, if he does decide to leave The Daily Show eventually, if the show will end with him – and we know those answers now, three years after the book was published. Stewart has retired (barring the occasional appearance on Colbert’s show) and Trevor Noah is doing an admirable job of holding down the fort after Stewart’s exit. (With less anger, and a little more befuddlement, which is a fun change.) I was also a little disappointed that she mentions Stewart’s friendship with Anthony Weiner – but doesn’t say anything about how he took the ribbing from Stewart over Weiner’s rather unglamorous exit from politics.
I have also heard that the audio book is not good – apparently the narrator is boring. So I’d recommend the print book over the audio, if you choose to read it.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Veiled Rose (Tales of Goldstone Wood, #2) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I am always a fan of fairy re-tellings, even if it is for a fairy tale I am not actually familiar with, as that of Rose Red. It took me awhile, but I also gathered that the book is a kind of Christian allegory, and parts remind me of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.
Rose Red is by far the most intriguing character, as her birth is shrouded in mystery, her friends are animals with voices, and she cloaks herself in veils and layers to hide even the smallest scrap of skin from any prying eyes - including her own. The shame she bears for her own appearance is so great that her very existence is surrounded by grand tales of monsters and demons told by all of the local villagers, yet she bears a strength much greater than she appears to possess and she has a kind of magic that allows her to walk the secret Paths and face down death in all its forms. Even at the end of the book, I could not fully grasp who or what she is.
Leo manages to find and befriend Rose Red in boyhood, but he has a burden of his own as Prince Lionheart of Southlands, destined to become King. Leo knows his responsibilities, but he secretly just wants a friend and to make people laugh as a court jester. These polar opposites manage to pull him across the world again and again as he struggles with the simple question, "What do you want?"
Many other characters litter the pages of the book, which was at times confusing as I attempted to deduce which creature or character was on the side of good or evil, such as the Dragon - which became apparent at its occupation of Southlands. As an allegory for Christianity, some characters were clear - such as the Prince, but others were murkier, such as the Lady.
The structure of the book itself was off-putting for me. The book is divided into five parts, with chapters in each part, but in between each part a vague sense of time has passed, so that the reader cannot pick up where the last chapter left off. At each break, I would get the feeling that the plot was picking up, only to be let down that the climactic moments have been glossed over. I also really disliked the ending. Certain things are expected of classic fairy tales, and none of this was included in the ending of this book. Perhaps the author was aiming for something more "realistic" or to simply get the reader to continue the series, but loose endings this big make me feel like I wasted my time reading the book, only to get no satisfaction at the finale.
Rose Red is by far the most intriguing character, as her birth is shrouded in mystery, her friends are animals with voices, and she cloaks herself in veils and layers to hide even the smallest scrap of skin from any prying eyes - including her own. The shame she bears for her own appearance is so great that her very existence is surrounded by grand tales of monsters and demons told by all of the local villagers, yet she bears a strength much greater than she appears to possess and she has a kind of magic that allows her to walk the secret Paths and face down death in all its forms. Even at the end of the book, I could not fully grasp who or what she is.
Leo manages to find and befriend Rose Red in boyhood, but he has a burden of his own as Prince Lionheart of Southlands, destined to become King. Leo knows his responsibilities, but he secretly just wants a friend and to make people laugh as a court jester. These polar opposites manage to pull him across the world again and again as he struggles with the simple question, "What do you want?"
Many other characters litter the pages of the book, which was at times confusing as I attempted to deduce which creature or character was on the side of good or evil, such as the Dragon - which became apparent at its occupation of Southlands. As an allegory for Christianity, some characters were clear - such as the Prince, but others were murkier, such as the Lady.
The structure of the book itself was off-putting for me. The book is divided into five parts, with chapters in each part, but in between each part a vague sense of time has passed, so that the reader cannot pick up where the last chapter left off. At each break, I would get the feeling that the plot was picking up, only to be let down that the climactic moments have been glossed over. I also really disliked the ending. Certain things are expected of classic fairy tales, and none of this was included in the ending of this book. Perhaps the author was aiming for something more "realistic" or to simply get the reader to continue the series, but loose endings this big make me feel like I wasted my time reading the book, only to get no satisfaction at the finale.