Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Horrible Bosses (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
We have all had them at some point in our life. You may even have one now. That’s right, I am talking about horrible bosses. So I was more than happy to go see Horrible Bosses, mostly to get suggestions on how to treat my subordinates. What? I never said that I was a great boss. But enough about me, the movie is about three friends whose superiors are making their lives unbearable, so they decide to murder their horrible bosses.
The three friends:
Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has spent years being the dedicated, hard-working employee. He is the first to arrive at work and the last to leave. But for some reason his boss, the company president, Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) feels the need to torment him on a daily basis. The one thing that has kept Nick going was the promotion to Vice President of Sales that his boss has been telling him that he would get. But when the day comes Dave decides that he will absorb the VP of Sales position within his own.
Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is a caring dental hygienist who loves his job, with the one exception of his boss Dr. Julia Harris D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston) who sexually harrasses him constantly. Now, personally, if I had a boss that looked like his boss she could sexually harass me all she wanted and I would be begging for overtime. However Dale is engaged to a wonderful woman, Stacy (Lindsay Sloane), and Dr. Harris demands that either Dale sleeps with her by the end of the week or else she will tell Stacy that Dale has been sleeping with her. Dr. Harris even has incriminating photos that she took of herself and Dale in questionable poses (of course he was unconscious during dental surgery when the pictures were taken but that’s beside the point).
Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) is an accountant at Pellit & Sons Chemical Plant. He’s dedicated, hard-working and actually loves his job and boss. But when his boss Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland) suddenly passes away, Jack’s deranged coke-head son, Bobby (Colin Farrell) takes over and all he cares about is making as much money possible until he runs the company into the ground.
Now you may be asking “Why don’t they just quit their jobs?” They thought about that but then they bump into an old High School buddy of theirs, Kenny Sommerfeld (P.J. Byrne), and they see first-hand how hard it is to find a job.
The decision to murder:
Dale thought he had a fantastic plan on how to murder their bosses and it was rather inexpensive but that gets flushed down the toilet. Nick and Kurt were pissed at Dale for a while but luckily the GPS navigation system in Kurt’s car leads them to Dean ‘MF’ Jones (Jamie Foxx). Dean becomes their Murder Consultant and he gives them a wealth of information on how to go about getting away with murder, as well as the idea that they should murder each other’s bosses. Thus the three friends embark on an epic adventure to kill each other’s bosses and save the world.. well, at the very least, save their sanity.
The onscreen chemistry between Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day was so amazing you would think they have been a comedy team for years and friends for even longer. It really seemed very genuine. Walking out of the theatre I overheard some people discussing who out of the three main actors did the better job and I have to agree with pretty much what they said. Though they all did great jobs Charlie Day rocked the screen just a little harder than either Jason did.
Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston & Colin Farrell were phenomenal. They brought such unique flair and realism to their characters. Kevin Spacey will always be the worst boss ever, Colin Farrell will always be the guy I want to party with and Jennifer Aniston is the boss I would love to have. I will be honest, I was guilty of type casting Jennifer but after seeing her in this role, I can safely say I have learned my lesson and I will not make that mistake again. (Psst, film industry, you can learn this lesson too).
While the screen time for Donald Sutherland, Jamie Foxx, Julie Bowen, Wendell Pierce, Ron White and Bob Newhart may have been shorter than I would have preferred, those scenes were still great. There’s even a really short scene with Isaiah Mustafa (fun fact: he attended the Seattle Seahawks’ training camp in 2000) and even though he was fully clothed in the scene I swear I heard “Yum” whispered by most of audience.
There were a couple of things in the movie that I felt could have been done better unfortunately to list those parts would be a major spoiler. But overall, the movie delivered what I expected and more. It was consistently funny, relatable, highly enjoyable, clever with some twists I didn’t see coming and all the actors (regardless of screen time) shined brightly as the stars they are.
The three friends:
Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has spent years being the dedicated, hard-working employee. He is the first to arrive at work and the last to leave. But for some reason his boss, the company president, Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) feels the need to torment him on a daily basis. The one thing that has kept Nick going was the promotion to Vice President of Sales that his boss has been telling him that he would get. But when the day comes Dave decides that he will absorb the VP of Sales position within his own.
Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is a caring dental hygienist who loves his job, with the one exception of his boss Dr. Julia Harris D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston) who sexually harrasses him constantly. Now, personally, if I had a boss that looked like his boss she could sexually harass me all she wanted and I would be begging for overtime. However Dale is engaged to a wonderful woman, Stacy (Lindsay Sloane), and Dr. Harris demands that either Dale sleeps with her by the end of the week or else she will tell Stacy that Dale has been sleeping with her. Dr. Harris even has incriminating photos that she took of herself and Dale in questionable poses (of course he was unconscious during dental surgery when the pictures were taken but that’s beside the point).
Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) is an accountant at Pellit & Sons Chemical Plant. He’s dedicated, hard-working and actually loves his job and boss. But when his boss Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland) suddenly passes away, Jack’s deranged coke-head son, Bobby (Colin Farrell) takes over and all he cares about is making as much money possible until he runs the company into the ground.
Now you may be asking “Why don’t they just quit their jobs?” They thought about that but then they bump into an old High School buddy of theirs, Kenny Sommerfeld (P.J. Byrne), and they see first-hand how hard it is to find a job.
The decision to murder:
Dale thought he had a fantastic plan on how to murder their bosses and it was rather inexpensive but that gets flushed down the toilet. Nick and Kurt were pissed at Dale for a while but luckily the GPS navigation system in Kurt’s car leads them to Dean ‘MF’ Jones (Jamie Foxx). Dean becomes their Murder Consultant and he gives them a wealth of information on how to go about getting away with murder, as well as the idea that they should murder each other’s bosses. Thus the three friends embark on an epic adventure to kill each other’s bosses and save the world.. well, at the very least, save their sanity.
The onscreen chemistry between Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day was so amazing you would think they have been a comedy team for years and friends for even longer. It really seemed very genuine. Walking out of the theatre I overheard some people discussing who out of the three main actors did the better job and I have to agree with pretty much what they said. Though they all did great jobs Charlie Day rocked the screen just a little harder than either Jason did.
Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston & Colin Farrell were phenomenal. They brought such unique flair and realism to their characters. Kevin Spacey will always be the worst boss ever, Colin Farrell will always be the guy I want to party with and Jennifer Aniston is the boss I would love to have. I will be honest, I was guilty of type casting Jennifer but after seeing her in this role, I can safely say I have learned my lesson and I will not make that mistake again. (Psst, film industry, you can learn this lesson too).
While the screen time for Donald Sutherland, Jamie Foxx, Julie Bowen, Wendell Pierce, Ron White and Bob Newhart may have been shorter than I would have preferred, those scenes were still great. There’s even a really short scene with Isaiah Mustafa (fun fact: he attended the Seattle Seahawks’ training camp in 2000) and even though he was fully clothed in the scene I swear I heard “Yum” whispered by most of audience.
There were a couple of things in the movie that I felt could have been done better unfortunately to list those parts would be a major spoiler. But overall, the movie delivered what I expected and more. It was consistently funny, relatable, highly enjoyable, clever with some twists I didn’t see coming and all the actors (regardless of screen time) shined brightly as the stars they are.
Complexities: Women in Mathematics
Bettye Anne Case and Anne M. Leggett
Book
Sophie Germain taught herself mathematics by candlelight, huddled in her bedclothes. Ada Byron...
Where There's a Will (Dads & Adages #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
...There's A Way. Connor and Will are at vastly different points in their lives. At 32, Connor...
Contemporary MM Age Gap Romance
Issac Holman recommended track Claire by Baxter Dury in Happy Soup by Baxter Dury in Music (curated)
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Hobo With a Shotgun (2011) in Movies
Aug 31, 2019
One Shell at a Time...
Somewhere between Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (Braindead) and maybe a Troma or Roger Corman classic B movies lies Hobo With A Shotgun.
You have to be in the right mood to watch a movie like this. Watching cool practical effects means everything was performed on the set without the use of separate visual or CGI effects. These were obviously used exclusively back in the day before ILM and the many CGI effect groups which exist today. I still feel generally speaking they are more realistic and don't take you out of a scene like bad CGI does.
Your friendly neighborhood hobo gets fed up with the local town's hoodlum brothers and their father owning the police and generally making life miserable for everyone so he decides to take the law into his own hands and dispense his own quick justice. while he is at it, he also removes other scum from the Earth including pedophile Santas and convenience store bandits.
He befriends the girl toy of one of the hoodlums and she becomes his sort of partner in crime when she is not getting sawed into and generally degraded in every way.
When I was looking through IMDb at the career of now the late Rutger Hauer, I was amazed on how many truly bad movies or most I had never heard of he had done in his career. Not saying he was the best actor, but he did have screen presence (especially in Blade Runner) which not every actor has.
He will be missed.
You have to be in the right mood to watch a movie like this. Watching cool practical effects means everything was performed on the set without the use of separate visual or CGI effects. These were obviously used exclusively back in the day before ILM and the many CGI effect groups which exist today. I still feel generally speaking they are more realistic and don't take you out of a scene like bad CGI does.
Your friendly neighborhood hobo gets fed up with the local town's hoodlum brothers and their father owning the police and generally making life miserable for everyone so he decides to take the law into his own hands and dispense his own quick justice. while he is at it, he also removes other scum from the Earth including pedophile Santas and convenience store bandits.
He befriends the girl toy of one of the hoodlums and she becomes his sort of partner in crime when she is not getting sawed into and generally degraded in every way.
When I was looking through IMDb at the career of now the late Rutger Hauer, I was amazed on how many truly bad movies or most I had never heard of he had done in his career. Not saying he was the best actor, but he did have screen presence (especially in Blade Runner) which not every actor has.
He will be missed.
Alpha's Fake Wife by Maria Warren
4.0
Rate It
Book
Alpha Andrew isn't interested in love, or marriage. He'd much rather hunt down the scum that's been...
Reverse Harem Paranormal Romance Shifters
My rating: 3.5
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
Erin Eveland is known for her short horror stories but she has moved onto writing novels with <i>Darkness</i> being her first of a series. It was not scary in the way that horror books are generally perceived to be but it did contain a good deal of paranormal ideas.
It begins when the main character, Catherine, is six years old and living with her grandmother. She is constantly haunted by an unseen presence, a nameless terror, which worries her grandmother immensely. Very suddenly, Catherine’s grandmother suffers a fatal heart attack and Catherine ends up being removed from her well looked after home to a dirty trailer park to live with her alcoholic mother. The novel then fast-forwards ten years to a time when Catherine is mostly fending for herself and her mother never goes a day sober. The terrors of her childhood have all but been forgotten but Catherine is beginning to remember and have similar experiences all over again. These incidents increase with the mysterious appearance of a man named Jorgen who insists he wants to protect Catherine. Meanwhile, Nathan, a friend of Catherine, comes into contact with an intriguing man in black who begins to teach him about colours and Darkness – something which could have done with a little more detail. Unbeknownst to Nathan, his dealings with this man may result in harming Catherine, especially as the two friends begin to see odd moving shapes – shadow creatures.
For a while there appeared to be a very thin line between heroes and villains as it took some time to work out the intentions of Jorgen and Artros (the man in black). The novel would have benefitted with more description about these characters: who they are or more importantly, what they are, as well as the significance of the shadow creatures.
Although it was good to be introduced to the paranormal aspects right at the start, this resulted in lessening the amount of foreboding and dread throughout the main bulk of the novel. Even though <i>Darkness</i> is the first in a series, it did not feel that it was properly starting until nearer the end. On finishing, the reader still does not know much about the shadow creatures or what the Darkness is. Presumably the sequel will be more enlightening.
<i>Darkness</i> is sub-titled “An Interactive Novel” and includes Quick Response codes at the beginning of each chapter to heighten the reading experience with the interactive addition of art and music. Of course to benefit from this a smart phone is required (I do not have one therefore cannot comment further on this feature).
Overall, <i>Darkness</i> is a well-written book full of originality that has the potential to become an exciting young adult series.
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
Erin Eveland is known for her short horror stories but she has moved onto writing novels with <i>Darkness</i> being her first of a series. It was not scary in the way that horror books are generally perceived to be but it did contain a good deal of paranormal ideas.
It begins when the main character, Catherine, is six years old and living with her grandmother. She is constantly haunted by an unseen presence, a nameless terror, which worries her grandmother immensely. Very suddenly, Catherine’s grandmother suffers a fatal heart attack and Catherine ends up being removed from her well looked after home to a dirty trailer park to live with her alcoholic mother. The novel then fast-forwards ten years to a time when Catherine is mostly fending for herself and her mother never goes a day sober. The terrors of her childhood have all but been forgotten but Catherine is beginning to remember and have similar experiences all over again. These incidents increase with the mysterious appearance of a man named Jorgen who insists he wants to protect Catherine. Meanwhile, Nathan, a friend of Catherine, comes into contact with an intriguing man in black who begins to teach him about colours and Darkness – something which could have done with a little more detail. Unbeknownst to Nathan, his dealings with this man may result in harming Catherine, especially as the two friends begin to see odd moving shapes – shadow creatures.
For a while there appeared to be a very thin line between heroes and villains as it took some time to work out the intentions of Jorgen and Artros (the man in black). The novel would have benefitted with more description about these characters: who they are or more importantly, what they are, as well as the significance of the shadow creatures.
Although it was good to be introduced to the paranormal aspects right at the start, this resulted in lessening the amount of foreboding and dread throughout the main bulk of the novel. Even though <i>Darkness</i> is the first in a series, it did not feel that it was properly starting until nearer the end. On finishing, the reader still does not know much about the shadow creatures or what the Darkness is. Presumably the sequel will be more enlightening.
<i>Darkness</i> is sub-titled “An Interactive Novel” and includes Quick Response codes at the beginning of each chapter to heighten the reading experience with the interactive addition of art and music. Of course to benefit from this a smart phone is required (I do not have one therefore cannot comment further on this feature).
Overall, <i>Darkness</i> is a well-written book full of originality that has the potential to become an exciting young adult series.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stumptown: The Case of the Girl Who Took Her Shampoo: Volume 1 in Books
May 21, 2020
After spotting in the trailer for the TV adaptation that it was based on a book I nipped off to order it straight away... I think it's great that people can see the potential in books that will make an interesting adaptation, with Stumptown I find that particularly impressive because I didn't find it that gripping. This first volume is four issues with one storyline and beyond that there are three more books which I haven't read, potentially there are things I picked up on that are resolved in later volumes. If that is the case though it's a bit of a problem for me because I don't really want to read any more of them.
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
I found the characters to be mostly non-descript both in the story and visually. On my first read-through I kept having to pop back a few pages and rereading when I lost track of who was who in a scene. It sadly didn't get much clearer on my second read-through.
Our main character is Dex Parios, a PI with a gambling problem. From the very beginning she isn't painted as a very likeable person, it's more than just some of the personality traits, she's been created as a gungho, mildly sex-driven, incompetent woman. At one point I put the book down because she was getting beaten up again with seemingly no real point. There's an almost leering quality to her (as well as other characters) in the illustrations and the inference from the text, as the only character that we really get to know this doesn't make compelling reading.
The storyline runs around the disappearance of a girl, her grandmother who runs the casino Dex is in debt to asks her to investigate and bring her back. That was perfectly introduced, though it took up a lot of pages, but other parts of the story don't click. As I said, I've read the book twice and still can't remember the reason for the second major part of the story... it feels very cloak and dagger which is perhaps why it wasn't very engaging.
Illustrations in comics/graphic novels are either hit or miss for me. The lettering here is pretty standard and managed to be clear and well laid out which was a great boost as sometimes it can get very chunky making it difficult to read. With the illustrations themselves you've got a nice colour palette that changes with the scenes and definitely helps move things along. Beyond that though I'm ultimately not a fan of the finished style, there's not enough differentiation between the characters and, as I mentioned above, it made for a difficult first read.
As an overall story there's something in it but it's a real challenge to like the characters, there wasn't anyone who I was looking forward to seeing again. Dex is given what feels like token bisexuality, it's not expressly pointed out but it's hinted at in a variety of ways. Her sexuality in general is quite heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if later down the line we find out she's slept with most of the recurring characters.
After I finished my first reading of Stumptown I messaged a friend... "It was bad and now I'm not sure I want to watch the series they made of it"... I pondered on that for a while because I was tired and maybe I was grumpy while reading it, the second reading came the next day, but even being more alert and less distracted by unfamiliar content I didn't get anything better out of this volume.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/based-on-stumptown.html
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Acts Of Vengeance (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Acts of Vengeance starts as fast-talking defence lawyer Frank (Banderas) misses his daughter’s talent show, that same night his wife Sue (Serafini) and daughter Olivia (Blankenship) are killed, with the police struggling to come up with the answers to who was behind it.
Frank teaches himself how to fight and defend himself as he continues to investigate the murders, being joined by a nurse Alma (Vega), he learns about the corruption coming from the streets, setting out to end the problem once and for all, while under a vow of silence.
Thoughts on Acts of Vengeance
Characters – Frank was a fast-talking defence lawyer, he made a career out of getting criminals off, this only put his personal life on the back burner though, leaving him to not be around when his wife and daughter are murdered. Taking a vow of silence, Frank decides to train and investigate the crime to seek the vengeance he requires to move on with his life. Strode is the one cop that offers Frank any advice while he searches for the truth. Alma is a nurse that has found herself under the fingers of a ruthless gang that want her to do work, she choses to help Frank when he becomes injured. While the end of the film does give the motivation for the killer, that does offer the question of who is in the right for the most part.
Performances – Antonio Banderas in the leading role is the strongest part of the film, we know he can handle himself in a fight, making this easy for him to deliver on. The supporting cast do struggle to make the impact which would be required, which only disappoints with the talent we have on show.
Story – The film follows a man that loses his wife and child, forcing him to go on a one man mission to learn the truth and taking on crime after making his career from defending criminals. When it comes to stories, this is the simplest kind, which is needed for action, when we get the reveal to who the killer was, it does make perfect sense, it is just the building up to this moment that is a waste, with endless amounts of time spend talking about the number of words a person say in a day.
Action – The action is mostly the training before Frank gets into his fights, each fight is in a different location which the fighting seemingly being easy to shoot style never too difficult to pull off.
Settings – The film is set in one city which sees just how different parts of the city can be the corrupt.
Scene of the Movie – Killer’s motivation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The talking about using too many words.
Final Thoughts – This is just another basic action movie, it offers little new material for the genre and if we are honest is nothing more than a late night movie.
Overall: Late Night action film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/04/01/abc-film-challenge-action-a-acts-of-vengeance-2017/
Frank teaches himself how to fight and defend himself as he continues to investigate the murders, being joined by a nurse Alma (Vega), he learns about the corruption coming from the streets, setting out to end the problem once and for all, while under a vow of silence.
Thoughts on Acts of Vengeance
Characters – Frank was a fast-talking defence lawyer, he made a career out of getting criminals off, this only put his personal life on the back burner though, leaving him to not be around when his wife and daughter are murdered. Taking a vow of silence, Frank decides to train and investigate the crime to seek the vengeance he requires to move on with his life. Strode is the one cop that offers Frank any advice while he searches for the truth. Alma is a nurse that has found herself under the fingers of a ruthless gang that want her to do work, she choses to help Frank when he becomes injured. While the end of the film does give the motivation for the killer, that does offer the question of who is in the right for the most part.
Performances – Antonio Banderas in the leading role is the strongest part of the film, we know he can handle himself in a fight, making this easy for him to deliver on. The supporting cast do struggle to make the impact which would be required, which only disappoints with the talent we have on show.
Story – The film follows a man that loses his wife and child, forcing him to go on a one man mission to learn the truth and taking on crime after making his career from defending criminals. When it comes to stories, this is the simplest kind, which is needed for action, when we get the reveal to who the killer was, it does make perfect sense, it is just the building up to this moment that is a waste, with endless amounts of time spend talking about the number of words a person say in a day.
Action – The action is mostly the training before Frank gets into his fights, each fight is in a different location which the fighting seemingly being easy to shoot style never too difficult to pull off.
Settings – The film is set in one city which sees just how different parts of the city can be the corrupt.
Scene of the Movie – Killer’s motivation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The talking about using too many words.
Final Thoughts – This is just another basic action movie, it offers little new material for the genre and if we are honest is nothing more than a late night movie.
Overall: Late Night action film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/04/01/abc-film-challenge-action-a-acts-of-vengeance-2017/