Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Rum Diary (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
For those unfamiliar with Hunter S. Thompson’s work (as I am), you may not recognize that this movie is based on his book of the same title, first published in 1998. Hunter S. Thompson is the same author who gave us the novel for which the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was based on.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
Multi-Asset Investing: A Practitioner's Framework
Pranay Gupta, Sven R. Skallsjo and Bing Li
Book
Despite the accepted fact that a substantial part of the risk and return of any portfolio comes from...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Mar 22, 2021
Rooted in Humanity
SOUND OF METAL has a pretty simple “one-line summary”: Heavy Metal Drummer deals with going deaf. But is it the humanity at the center of this film that makes it worthwhile.
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Beyond the Red (Beyond the Red, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
I can be trusted with responsibilities again! the reviewer says as she slowly climbs out of the reviewing hiatus hole.
You're delusional, the hiatus whispers menacingly, just a voice from the dark depths. You've still got a few books from 2016 left! And what about all those books you abandoned reviewing even though you want to review? I still have their souls! And I will have yours!
<b>I'm not going to get out of this, aren't I? 😢</b>
<i>Beyond the Red</i> is one of the last books I read back in 2017 that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, and here we are, a year later, with shenanigans but no review yet.
And when I want to write a review, I'm staring at a blank document in Google Drive for hours upon hours wondering what to say.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><b>Four Things About <i>Beyond the Red</i></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">Generally I write a list of either the good or bad (primarily just good. Bad I've been skipping or writing little paragraphs for), but my brain is crying on the forgetfulness of this book, so I'm going to go with generic little things you should be aware of before picking up the book.</div>
<h3><b>There are two perspectives and they are polar opposites</b></h3>
We have a half-blood who loses everything and becomes a slave, and then we have a queen who technically has everything. I thought it was really cool to see Jaes world from two different sides of the spectrum.
<h3><b>I don't think I'm a fan of the language</b></h3>
I don't mind made up languages in a book (within boundaries, of course, because my brain cannot wrap itself around overly complex words sometimes), but <em>Beyond the Reds</em> world language is very similar to ours yet different.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I know three different ways to break out of this kinduv brace, and everything inside me screams that I use one of them.
I wont feel bad, not for her, not after what she did, and yet I cant fight this fucken ridiculous need to fix this, to hold her until its okay.</blockquote>
Is it <i>meant </i>to be similar? I'm assuming so based on how humans are still around and the Sepharon are very similar to humans in <i>Beyond the Red</i>. <b>Either way, I'm confused.</b> Or I missed something. Who knows. <strong>I've been out of it lately. :/</strong>
<h3><b> </b><b>But the world building is super cool despite language</b></h3>
Jaes world building is well developed, and it's shown constantly throughout the book. And is it just me, or did anyone else think of this as Star Wars just a little? Am I just assuming Star Wars is going to be like this because if so, I'm going into the box of shame. (Lupe, help.)
Now that I look at the ARC I have, it's the blurbs. I blame the blurbs. Help me.
<h3><b>Thankfully, the names aren't complicated</b></h3>
Sometimes books go all out and the characters have strange names that are hard to pronounce, so my brain cries in terror and starts wailing. <i>Beyond the Red</i> has its strange names, but they're not complicated. They're an average of two syllables and my brain won't start tearing itself to shreds figuring out the right pronunciation. Is this right? wonders the reviewer, as she puzzles over all the possible ways to say the name.
Honestly, if you're looking for an adventure on a new planet that's a nod to Mars with not complicated names, <i>Beyond the Red</i> might be perfect for you. If you don't mind the language, that is.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/beyond-red-ava-jae-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I can be trusted with responsibilities again! the reviewer says as she slowly climbs out of the reviewing hiatus hole.
You're delusional, the hiatus whispers menacingly, just a voice from the dark depths. You've still got a few books from 2016 left! And what about all those books you abandoned reviewing even though you want to review? I still have their souls! And I will have yours!
<b>I'm not going to get out of this, aren't I? 😢</b>
<i>Beyond the Red</i> is one of the last books I read back in 2017 that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, and here we are, a year later, with shenanigans but no review yet.
And when I want to write a review, I'm staring at a blank document in Google Drive for hours upon hours wondering what to say.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><b>Four Things About <i>Beyond the Red</i></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">Generally I write a list of either the good or bad (primarily just good. Bad I've been skipping or writing little paragraphs for), but my brain is crying on the forgetfulness of this book, so I'm going to go with generic little things you should be aware of before picking up the book.</div>
<h3><b>There are two perspectives and they are polar opposites</b></h3>
We have a half-blood who loses everything and becomes a slave, and then we have a queen who technically has everything. I thought it was really cool to see Jaes world from two different sides of the spectrum.
<h3><b>I don't think I'm a fan of the language</b></h3>
I don't mind made up languages in a book (within boundaries, of course, because my brain cannot wrap itself around overly complex words sometimes), but <em>Beyond the Reds</em> world language is very similar to ours yet different.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I know three different ways to break out of this kinduv brace, and everything inside me screams that I use one of them.
I wont feel bad, not for her, not after what she did, and yet I cant fight this fucken ridiculous need to fix this, to hold her until its okay.</blockquote>
Is it <i>meant </i>to be similar? I'm assuming so based on how humans are still around and the Sepharon are very similar to humans in <i>Beyond the Red</i>. <b>Either way, I'm confused.</b> Or I missed something. Who knows. <strong>I've been out of it lately. :/</strong>
<h3><b> </b><b>But the world building is super cool despite language</b></h3>
Jaes world building is well developed, and it's shown constantly throughout the book. And is it just me, or did anyone else think of this as Star Wars just a little? Am I just assuming Star Wars is going to be like this because if so, I'm going into the box of shame. (Lupe, help.)
Now that I look at the ARC I have, it's the blurbs. I blame the blurbs. Help me.
<h3><b>Thankfully, the names aren't complicated</b></h3>
Sometimes books go all out and the characters have strange names that are hard to pronounce, so my brain cries in terror and starts wailing. <i>Beyond the Red</i> has its strange names, but they're not complicated. They're an average of two syllables and my brain won't start tearing itself to shreds figuring out the right pronunciation. Is this right? wonders the reviewer, as she puzzles over all the possible ways to say the name.
Honestly, if you're looking for an adventure on a new planet that's a nod to Mars with not complicated names, <i>Beyond the Red</i> might be perfect for you. If you don't mind the language, that is.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/beyond-red-ava-jae-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman Begins‘ ending was a brilliant nod towards the things that were to come, as Gary Oldman’s, newly promoted Lieutenant Jim Gordon flashes The Joker’s calling card, Batman’s revival had now well and truly begun. A film with lesser known villains was about to retread more familiar ground with the introduction of The Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face.
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Neeson's best film in years
Yes, we all know the jokes. Liam Neeson’s spiral into revenge thriller territory is one of the most meme-worthy things in film, except maybe John Travolta and Battlefield Earth. Starting with Taken and its, let’s be honest, dreadful sequels, the Irish actor has made a name for himself as the go-to guy to rough someone up after a spate of bad-luck.
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)