Search
Search results
Bulletproof (Songbird, #2)
8.7
Rate It
Book
Morgan Pritchett doesn't need anyone. Strong-willed and confident, she's the master of organizing...
Contemporary Romance
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 4 Minute Mile (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Once again, Skewed & Reviewed has granted me the good fortune to screen another film for
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lincoln (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The history of this country is steeped in mystery and intrigue, but it’s fuzzy on the details. We cling to heroes of the past because we are jaded by the present. Lincoln, a new film from Steven Spielberg, comes to us at a time when there seems to be even more political strife than usual. (Or perhaps that’s just me getting older and actually paying attention.) Either way, I think this movie’s arrival on the silver screen is very timely, given the recent election.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Death Note (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Netflix has done a damn good job with its house produced movies and shows – except for Death Note. This movie is complete and utter trash. For those of you that don’t know, I ran a site that focused largely on anime for several years. The site was called Project Otaku and served as a press outlet as well (I was able to attend Japan Expo as press and one of my writers attended NYCC). So naturally, I’ve seen the anime and I had high expectations.
First, it should be noted that with this film, Netflix joined the ranks of the Hollywood studios that have white-washed and bastardized several remakes of Asian horror films. From Oldboy to The Grudge to Ghost in the Shell (and countless others), it’s like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (There’s rumors that my favorite Japanese horror flick, Audition, will soon fall prey to this too.) Honestly, they should just stop.
This version of Death Note takes place in Seattle, thus localizing it to the US. There is also no second notebook, which in the anime and manga are used to misdirect law enforcement. Because there’s only one notebook, there’s no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflix’s adaptation, including modification of rules for no apparent reason (such as the days the Death Note can be lost).
Overall, I regret watching this. It was a waste of my time.
First, it should be noted that with this film, Netflix joined the ranks of the Hollywood studios that have white-washed and bastardized several remakes of Asian horror films. From Oldboy to The Grudge to Ghost in the Shell (and countless others), it’s like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (There’s rumors that my favorite Japanese horror flick, Audition, will soon fall prey to this too.) Honestly, they should just stop.
This version of Death Note takes place in Seattle, thus localizing it to the US. There is also no second notebook, which in the anime and manga are used to misdirect law enforcement. Because there’s only one notebook, there’s no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflix’s adaptation, including modification of rules for no apparent reason (such as the days the Death Note can be lost).
Overall, I regret watching this. It was a waste of my time.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Lover Eternal (Black Dagger Brotherhood, #2) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
First off, I enjoyed this book much more than the first book. I was familiar with the background, so I did not need to take time to understand everything, and I was already familiar with the main characters of the brotherhood, so I knew who I liked and wanted to know more about.
This book focused on Rhage and his love interest, Mary. Rhage is the one nicknamed "Hollywood" for both his good looks and promiscuous behavior. That, plus the violent habits of the brotherhood allow him to keep the dragon-like beast inside in check, but the appearance of Mary puts a new spin on an old curse. Just like the theme in the first book, the desire to claim Mary for his wife changes Rhage permanently - I detect a commonality throughout the series with this theme.
Rhage has a very frank and forward way of communicating, which I like, though it can sometimes throw me off in the reading. Mary sometimes got quite annoying with how low her self-image is. The way that the book ends and how the Scribe Virgin plays into Rhage and Mary's romance seemed a bit out of place and over-compensating, but it did cause things to work out well, so I won't complain.
The subplot of the lessers also progresses with the introduction of a secondary character under Mr. X, a Mr. O who seems to resent being a lesser and possesses a weakness. This, combined with a subplot dedicated to the brother, Zsadist, leads into the next book in the series, Lover Awakened.
This book focused on Rhage and his love interest, Mary. Rhage is the one nicknamed "Hollywood" for both his good looks and promiscuous behavior. That, plus the violent habits of the brotherhood allow him to keep the dragon-like beast inside in check, but the appearance of Mary puts a new spin on an old curse. Just like the theme in the first book, the desire to claim Mary for his wife changes Rhage permanently - I detect a commonality throughout the series with this theme.
Rhage has a very frank and forward way of communicating, which I like, though it can sometimes throw me off in the reading. Mary sometimes got quite annoying with how low her self-image is. The way that the book ends and how the Scribe Virgin plays into Rhage and Mary's romance seemed a bit out of place and over-compensating, but it did cause things to work out well, so I won't complain.
The subplot of the lessers also progresses with the introduction of a secondary character under Mr. X, a Mr. O who seems to resent being a lesser and possesses a weakness. This, combined with a subplot dedicated to the brother, Zsadist, leads into the next book in the series, Lover Awakened.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Honey Boy (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
392. Honey Boy. A story about a boy, who's dad made a living off him, by pimping him out to Hollywood, ensuring he would grow up to be a weirdo, the Shia LeBeouf story. Ok, it's written by him, oh and it stars him as Tom Cruise's character from Born on the Fourth of July, only he's not in a wheel chair, he has a son. Dad, James and son, Otis live in a motel, close by the movie studios where Otis is a child actor, doing child actor things...insert Corey Feldman stories here... while his dad, lives off him, and doing other shady things and not being a good dad, and how the two deal with that. Movie also tells the tale of twenty-something Otis, and his adult acting life is... insert Shia LeBeouf stories here... where he relives the memories we are watching. Guy who plays older Otis, Lucas Hedges, has LeBeouf's super annoying way of aggressive, spit-talking and mannerisms down pact, even though it's not supposed to be him in the first place...ooops. I really did enjoy the movie I just felt there were several places where I felt the filmmakers were patting themselves on the back, saying to themselves 'yea man, this is deep. stretch this out a little longer, man, really show that this 12 year old boy's relationship with the prostitute across the way is beautiful, not creepy in any way at all.' Worth the watch, check it out! Filmbufftim on FB
Given the calibre of talent on show here you’d be forgiven for thinking that this film might have been a little more popular.
Most of them play second fiddle to Vince (Riley) who finds himself in a spot of bother when he takes the place of someone in an organised game of Russian roulette were people gamble on the outcome.
Along for the ride in this barrel spinning thriller is Ray Winstone and Mickey Rourke who themselves are part of the circle of men putting their lives on the line for a potential big payout.
Michael Shannon is cast as the adjudicator making sure that everyone follows the rules and has the right amount of bullets in the chamber, he’s hardly pushing his acting talents to any great length. Statham avoids kicking anyone’s head in for an entire film as the brother of Winestone’s character, Ronald.
The film in fact is a remake of Babluani’s original 13 Tzameti, in which his son plays the lead role, that film faired a lot better with critics. Obviously that meant Babluani remaking the film and testing it out on the English speaking audience, getting a few house hold names to try and sell it.
Aside from the Russian roulette scenes the film generally falls flat, the ending is awful and there is no real pay off, you could almost see what was going to happen mile off.
I think directors should start sticking to the originals only and avoid the Hollywood remake for the sake of having their reputation tarnished in anyway.
Most of them play second fiddle to Vince (Riley) who finds himself in a spot of bother when he takes the place of someone in an organised game of Russian roulette were people gamble on the outcome.
Along for the ride in this barrel spinning thriller is Ray Winstone and Mickey Rourke who themselves are part of the circle of men putting their lives on the line for a potential big payout.
Michael Shannon is cast as the adjudicator making sure that everyone follows the rules and has the right amount of bullets in the chamber, he’s hardly pushing his acting talents to any great length. Statham avoids kicking anyone’s head in for an entire film as the brother of Winestone’s character, Ronald.
The film in fact is a remake of Babluani’s original 13 Tzameti, in which his son plays the lead role, that film faired a lot better with critics. Obviously that meant Babluani remaking the film and testing it out on the English speaking audience, getting a few house hold names to try and sell it.
Aside from the Russian roulette scenes the film generally falls flat, the ending is awful and there is no real pay off, you could almost see what was going to happen mile off.
I think directors should start sticking to the originals only and avoid the Hollywood remake for the sake of having their reputation tarnished in anyway.
There's Been a Life! My Autobiography
Book
Since his first tentative steps on stage, Alex Norton's career has been both highly colourful and...