Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Genuinely Moving
The Marvel Studios movie train has been non-stop over the last few years, from Iron Man to The Avengers, it shows no signs of slowing. Now though, a take-over by Disney has ensured both studios enter into rather unknown territory.
The first film from this collaboration is Big Hero 6, an animated superhero film in the same vein as Pixar’s The Incredibles. But does it reach those dizzying heights?
Big Hero 6 follows Hiro Hamada, a 14-year-old robotics prodigy as he goes about his life in the fictional city of San Fransokyo alongside his brother Tadashi. Hiro has lost his way after a family tragedy and it takes his brother’s robot Baymax to help find himself again.
The story unfortunately is the film’s weakest link, being predictable at best and downright clichéd at its worst. In this respect, Big Hero 6 falls well short of the standards set by the majority of Pixar’s movies.
Thankfully, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a match for Disney’s best, if not quite up to the level of last year’s How to Train YourBig_Hero_6_Poster_2 Dragon 2. The city of San Fransokyo is beautifully realised in sweeping, gloriously colourful shots that show of the animation best when they’re from above.
The characters themselves are rendered in painstaking detail and in particular sequences it becomes difficult to tell the film apart from a live-action feature.
Vocal performances are also very good. Ryan Potter plays Hiro as a vulnerable, pre-pubescent teen who by the end of the film comes to realise just who he is exceptionally well. James Cromwell, Maya Rudolph and Damon Wayans also lend their recognisable voices to people in the film.
However, by far the stand-out is Baymax, a hilariously funny healthcare robot. Disney’s animators should be given plaudits for crafting a character which despite its lack of facial features and emotive tones is so engaging to watch.
Unfortunately, when Baymax evolves into super-Baymax, his characterisation suffers and the funny, caring nature of him is lost somewhat.
The final third of the film delves into generic superhero fodder, but picks up again just before the end credits role with a deeply emotive.
Big Hero 6 also gets increasingly dark the further into the movie you get, the comedic elements get muddled in a plot which isn’t quite sure which way it wants to go and young children may find it a little to scary to stomach.
Thankfully the negatives here are far outweighed by the positives and Big Hero 6 steamrolls itself into a moving finale which leaves itself open for a sequel nicely.
Overall, from stunning visuals to engaging characters, Big Hero 6 continues Disney’s penchant for creating fun and watchable films. Despite a lack of originality, the character of Baymax makes up for most of the other shortcomings and ensures the generic story is genuinely moving.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/05/genuinely-moving-big-hero-6-review/
The first film from this collaboration is Big Hero 6, an animated superhero film in the same vein as Pixar’s The Incredibles. But does it reach those dizzying heights?
Big Hero 6 follows Hiro Hamada, a 14-year-old robotics prodigy as he goes about his life in the fictional city of San Fransokyo alongside his brother Tadashi. Hiro has lost his way after a family tragedy and it takes his brother’s robot Baymax to help find himself again.
The story unfortunately is the film’s weakest link, being predictable at best and downright clichéd at its worst. In this respect, Big Hero 6 falls well short of the standards set by the majority of Pixar’s movies.
Thankfully, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a match for Disney’s best, if not quite up to the level of last year’s How to Train YourBig_Hero_6_Poster_2 Dragon 2. The city of San Fransokyo is beautifully realised in sweeping, gloriously colourful shots that show of the animation best when they’re from above.
The characters themselves are rendered in painstaking detail and in particular sequences it becomes difficult to tell the film apart from a live-action feature.
Vocal performances are also very good. Ryan Potter plays Hiro as a vulnerable, pre-pubescent teen who by the end of the film comes to realise just who he is exceptionally well. James Cromwell, Maya Rudolph and Damon Wayans also lend their recognisable voices to people in the film.
However, by far the stand-out is Baymax, a hilariously funny healthcare robot. Disney’s animators should be given plaudits for crafting a character which despite its lack of facial features and emotive tones is so engaging to watch.
Unfortunately, when Baymax evolves into super-Baymax, his characterisation suffers and the funny, caring nature of him is lost somewhat.
The final third of the film delves into generic superhero fodder, but picks up again just before the end credits role with a deeply emotive.
Big Hero 6 also gets increasingly dark the further into the movie you get, the comedic elements get muddled in a plot which isn’t quite sure which way it wants to go and young children may find it a little to scary to stomach.
Thankfully the negatives here are far outweighed by the positives and Big Hero 6 steamrolls itself into a moving finale which leaves itself open for a sequel nicely.
Overall, from stunning visuals to engaging characters, Big Hero 6 continues Disney’s penchant for creating fun and watchable films. Despite a lack of originality, the character of Baymax makes up for most of the other shortcomings and ensures the generic story is genuinely moving.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/05/genuinely-moving-big-hero-6-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 16, 2018 (Updated Jul 17, 2018)
Worthy sequel, although a bit patchy in places
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's hard to believe that the original Incredibles movie is now 14 years old. It was, and still is, a fun, original and highly enjoyable superhero movie that was always deserving of a sequel. I re-watched it recently with my daughter who had never seen it, and despite it's age, and the fact that we've now had a decade of non-stop Marvel superhero movies since it was made, it still holds up 'incredibly' well.
The sequel picks up right where the original finished off, with The Incredibles battling supervillain The Underminer. It's the first of many impressive battle sequence, and does a good job of reminding us of the skills and abilities of each individual family member, not to mention how well they all work together as a team. The advances in animation quality over the last 14 years are obvious, while still managing to retain the unique look and feel of the original.
Unfortunately, the Parr's attempts to save the city don't quite go to plan, leading once again to their helpfulness being questioned by the US Government. They find themselves in a motel, contemplating their futures, until they are approached by Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk). He claims that the public have only seen the negative side of superheroes that is portrayed by the government, and wants to provide microscopic cameras embedded within the superhero costumes so that they can capture what they see. By showing the hero's side of the story, Winston plans to generate enough good publicity to start winning over the general public once again and hopefully reverse the law that makes superheroes illegal. Elastigirl is chosen to kick things off, largely due to the minimal government damage she's likely to cause in comparison to her husband! As a result, Mr Incredible is left at home to care for the kids, while Elastigirl is out having fun and saving the world.
The domestic comedy with Mr Incredible stuck at home is just brilliant. Not only does he have to try and get to grips with 'New Math' homework for son Dash, but also with daughter Violet and her boyfriend trouble. Not to mention the discovery that baby Jack-Jack has a set of impressive and highly unpredictable superpowers of his own. Meanwhile, the plan involving Elastigirl is working so well, that plans to make superheroes legal again get underway. But then mysterious new villain Screenslaver begins causing hypnotic chaos around town, and the family must band together once again in order to save the day.
Aside from the impressive action, and the hilarious scenes involving Jack-Jack, the rest of the movie in comparison does feel a little flat in places. In my opinion it falls slightly short of matching the original, although still a highly enjoyable and worthy sequel.
The sequel picks up right where the original finished off, with The Incredibles battling supervillain The Underminer. It's the first of many impressive battle sequence, and does a good job of reminding us of the skills and abilities of each individual family member, not to mention how well they all work together as a team. The advances in animation quality over the last 14 years are obvious, while still managing to retain the unique look and feel of the original.
Unfortunately, the Parr's attempts to save the city don't quite go to plan, leading once again to their helpfulness being questioned by the US Government. They find themselves in a motel, contemplating their futures, until they are approached by Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk). He claims that the public have only seen the negative side of superheroes that is portrayed by the government, and wants to provide microscopic cameras embedded within the superhero costumes so that they can capture what they see. By showing the hero's side of the story, Winston plans to generate enough good publicity to start winning over the general public once again and hopefully reverse the law that makes superheroes illegal. Elastigirl is chosen to kick things off, largely due to the minimal government damage she's likely to cause in comparison to her husband! As a result, Mr Incredible is left at home to care for the kids, while Elastigirl is out having fun and saving the world.
The domestic comedy with Mr Incredible stuck at home is just brilliant. Not only does he have to try and get to grips with 'New Math' homework for son Dash, but also with daughter Violet and her boyfriend trouble. Not to mention the discovery that baby Jack-Jack has a set of impressive and highly unpredictable superpowers of his own. Meanwhile, the plan involving Elastigirl is working so well, that plans to make superheroes legal again get underway. But then mysterious new villain Screenslaver begins causing hypnotic chaos around town, and the family must band together once again in order to save the day.
Aside from the impressive action, and the hilarious scenes involving Jack-Jack, the rest of the movie in comparison does feel a little flat in places. In my opinion it falls slightly short of matching the original, although still a highly enjoyable and worthy sequel.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2020
Pleasantly Surprised with a Great Lead Performance by Moss
I really had no desire to check out the Blumhouse re-imaging of the classic Universal horror classic THE INVISIBLE MAN, but I was hearing positive comments on it - especially about the lead performance - so I figured I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Nice Guys (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is how it’s supposed to be done. Though it’s not the most original flick to grace the silver screen, Shane Black’s follow-up to his instant cult classic Kiss Kiss Bang Bang has everything you could want in an action/comedy romp. A solid dynamic between its two charming yet flawed leads, a strong plot that has enough twists and turns to keep you thrilled but not lost, and plenty of quotably razor-sharp dialogue. Imagine the Lethal Weapon type meets a less obtuse Inherent Vice. Besides the return of Jason Bourne in July, it will undoubtedly be the most entertaining thing you’ll see in another summer season of mediocrity. Is anybody really that interested in a ninth X-Men film?
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
Italian Lakes
Lonely Planet, Cristian Bonetto, Duncan Garwood and Belinda Dixon
Book
Discover the freedom of open roads with Lonely Planet Italian Lakes Road Trips, your passport to...
Lonely Planet Central Asia
Lonely Planet, Mark Elliott, Bradley Mayhew and Tom Masters
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Central Asia is your...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Woman in the Window (2021) in Movies
May 24, 2021
It is NOT Rear Window
A piece of advice for you when you start to watch the “Alfred Hitchcock-esque” thriller, THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. If you are at all a Hitchcock fan, you will be spending the first part of this film comparing it to the 1954 classic REAR WINDOW and this would be a disservice to this film.
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Man Of Steel in Books
Nov 30, 2020
If you know me, you know that I have a strong dislike for the writing by Brian Michael Bendis. His last few years before his journey to DC Comics, the work he did on the X-titles, as well as GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, it was just rubbish! It was the end result of someone who clearly needed a change of scenery and a more focused editor! After reading this, I feel confident that what I just wrote, as well as feeling, is pretty close to the truth, as this, his first work for DC, was frikkin' A-MAZ-ING!
While I have a great love of Marvel (preferrably older stuff, as the new stuff is starting to stink like yesterday's diapers!), I also have a great love of DC (the comics, not the nation's capital, which stinks as well, but of ignorance, racism, and misogyny), especially Superman, a hero who has never been more needed than he is needed now! It is very apparent that BMB has a great love/admiration of the Big 'S'!
His Clark Kent is written different from Superman, making the <i>illusion</i> that much easier to swallow once the glasses and suit goes on over his costume. The character does not appear as "mild mannered" as he was originally conceived, but he also is not mean or off-putting. He is still an alien, but he embraced our customs, and the end result is quite pleasing, especially with the toxicity that exists with the US at this point in time!
Equally well written is BMB's handling of Lois Lane and Jon, her and Kal-El's son. Lois is both a successful, highly competent writer, but she is also a mother. Not an overbear, bitchy mom, but someone who cares for her son, as much as she cares for her husband. The boy, Jon, is written like a normal boy his age, but without that precociousness that seems to be given to young'uns his age on TV!
As I am so prone to do in my other reviews, I want to give credit to the art side of this tale. The artists (yes, artists, Plural.) on board is quite a top shelf gathering. Jim Lee handles the first issue, while Ivan Reis (BLACKEST NIGHT), Steve Rude (NEXUS), Jay Fabok (New 52 JUSTICE LEAGUE), and even Ryan Sook! What a heckuva good way to start your beginnings with DC!
While some are apt to disagree, Superman needs the red shorts! And, that, my friends, was Bendis' first order of business on taking on the Man of Steel! I look forward to seeing where he goes with Superman, as the character is one that many love, and many will expect something good! If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see where the rest of this ride takes us!
While I have a great love of Marvel (preferrably older stuff, as the new stuff is starting to stink like yesterday's diapers!), I also have a great love of DC (the comics, not the nation's capital, which stinks as well, but of ignorance, racism, and misogyny), especially Superman, a hero who has never been more needed than he is needed now! It is very apparent that BMB has a great love/admiration of the Big 'S'!
His Clark Kent is written different from Superman, making the <i>illusion</i> that much easier to swallow once the glasses and suit goes on over his costume. The character does not appear as "mild mannered" as he was originally conceived, but he also is not mean or off-putting. He is still an alien, but he embraced our customs, and the end result is quite pleasing, especially with the toxicity that exists with the US at this point in time!
Equally well written is BMB's handling of Lois Lane and Jon, her and Kal-El's son. Lois is both a successful, highly competent writer, but she is also a mother. Not an overbear, bitchy mom, but someone who cares for her son, as much as she cares for her husband. The boy, Jon, is written like a normal boy his age, but without that precociousness that seems to be given to young'uns his age on TV!
As I am so prone to do in my other reviews, I want to give credit to the art side of this tale. The artists (yes, artists, Plural.) on board is quite a top shelf gathering. Jim Lee handles the first issue, while Ivan Reis (BLACKEST NIGHT), Steve Rude (NEXUS), Jay Fabok (New 52 JUSTICE LEAGUE), and even Ryan Sook! What a heckuva good way to start your beginnings with DC!
While some are apt to disagree, Superman needs the red shorts! And, that, my friends, was Bendis' first order of business on taking on the Man of Steel! I look forward to seeing where he goes with Superman, as the character is one that many love, and many will expect something good! If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see where the rest of this ride takes us!
