Search
Search results
Patrick Wilson recommended Fletch (1985) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The creators of this remake of Clash of the Titans changed quite a few things from the original 1981 film. They perfected the special effects, lost all the campiness, but still failed to make an engaging film. Director Louis Leterrier, (Incredible Hulk, Danny the Dog) needs to find a way to redeem himself after this emotionless film.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Poltergeist (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I struggle with my view of this film. Mostly because I want to compare it to the 1982 horror classic it is a remake of. But rather than pick apart how it does or does not compare to the original I realize I must judge this film on its own merit. As such, I feel this film is just…ok. Not bad, not great, just ok.
That isn’t to say this film is not a good time. In fact, It is quite fun. I feel there are more laughs in this film than scares. Fun times indeed. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play good spirited parents trying to make the best of their financial burden while moving into a new home. The three kids are the typical modern type. The older teenager concerned with her cell phone, the tech savvy son, Griffin, who seems to be sacred of everything and the “gifted” little daughter, Madison, who is innocent. The film starts lighthearted enough with jokes and everyday family squabbles. But that quickly changes as Madison starts to have conversations with her closet and the television. Yet, the only one who sees these freak events are scardy-cat Griffin, who won’t sleep in his room when there is a squirrel but doesn’t scream for his parents when he notices the electricity doing things it shouldn’t. But I digress.
And here is where the problems of this film arrive. Rather than create its own memorable scenes that sets it apart from the original, it is in such a hurry to give its own take on the classic scenes from the first film. As such, there is no real sense of rhythm to the pacing of this film that is a staple of good horror films with drawn out sense of suspense the help heighten the sense of dread. And so we are left without any real worry for our characters or us as the audience. We have a few jump scares before a long conclusion that feels more like “Classic” made for TV than big budget film.
In the end, we are left with a “popcorn” horror film that is fun but forgettable at best. Fans of the original will be disappointed. Parents who want to take their young teenage kids to their first horror film will appreciate the wholesome family feel.
That isn’t to say this film is not a good time. In fact, It is quite fun. I feel there are more laughs in this film than scares. Fun times indeed. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play good spirited parents trying to make the best of their financial burden while moving into a new home. The three kids are the typical modern type. The older teenager concerned with her cell phone, the tech savvy son, Griffin, who seems to be sacred of everything and the “gifted” little daughter, Madison, who is innocent. The film starts lighthearted enough with jokes and everyday family squabbles. But that quickly changes as Madison starts to have conversations with her closet and the television. Yet, the only one who sees these freak events are scardy-cat Griffin, who won’t sleep in his room when there is a squirrel but doesn’t scream for his parents when he notices the electricity doing things it shouldn’t. But I digress.
And here is where the problems of this film arrive. Rather than create its own memorable scenes that sets it apart from the original, it is in such a hurry to give its own take on the classic scenes from the first film. As such, there is no real sense of rhythm to the pacing of this film that is a staple of good horror films with drawn out sense of suspense the help heighten the sense of dread. And so we are left without any real worry for our characters or us as the audience. We have a few jump scares before a long conclusion that feels more like “Classic” made for TV than big budget film.
In the end, we are left with a “popcorn” horror film that is fun but forgettable at best. Fans of the original will be disappointed. Parents who want to take their young teenage kids to their first horror film will appreciate the wholesome family feel.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Suicidal Since 1995 by Ängie in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Ängie is an electric-pop singer from Stockholm, Sweden. Not too long ago, she released an explosive debut EP, entitled, “Suicidal Since 1995”.
Ängie – “Dope”
The 7-track project begins with the boomin’ lead single, “Dope”, produced by Canto. Everything about this song is dope, down to the title. Also, it’s hypnotizing frequency is so addictive that it has clocked well over a quarter of a million views on YouTube, and that’s within a month of its release.
The artist described “Dope” as a love song where she confuses love with the rush for music and drugs. In the music video, she performs among various vices including drugs, vehicles, and animals.
The second song, “Boss”, is a flirtatious ditty about foreplay in the back of a vehicle. It’s straight to the point, hot, and steamy. Also, it’s a remake of Lana Del Rey’s “You Can Be the Boss”, from the singer’s “Unreleased” album.
Not too long ago, we covered the third track, “Here For My Habits”, which is also the second single from Suicidal Since 1995.
“Here For My Habits”
On the song, Ängie talks about her sexual-invitation experiences with dealers from her past. She explains how some of them tried to hit on her, some even falling in love with her.
The fourth track, “We Run”, is a song about a drug-induced nighttime romance, perpetrated in the dark or secrecy. But when the sun comes up, the hypnotic-tranced lovers run for cover.
The fifth track, “2013”, speaks about living young, wild, and free. Also, lyrics of hiding from cops and papa indicates a certain level of paranoia due to probably smoking too much bomb weed and drinking alcoholic beverages. Then a deep thought sinks in, “18, I can’t believe where the time’s gone?”
The sixth track, “Coke Ain’t Brain”, takes the volume up another notch. The song speaks of someone being addicted to Mary Jane (marijuana) and now they’re trapped to a ball and chain with Charlie (cocaine) stuffed in their nose.
The seventh song, “Venus in Fur”, is laidback, trancey, with a backdrop made of fluffy pillows. When the singer sings, “I am tired, I am weary. I could sleep for a thousand years,” listeners might find themselves under her spell.
Overall, “Suicidal Since 1995” is a solid debut project worth listening to. It has replay value and we highly recommend adding it to your music library.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/angie-suicidal-since-1995/
Ängie – “Dope”
The 7-track project begins with the boomin’ lead single, “Dope”, produced by Canto. Everything about this song is dope, down to the title. Also, it’s hypnotizing frequency is so addictive that it has clocked well over a quarter of a million views on YouTube, and that’s within a month of its release.
The artist described “Dope” as a love song where she confuses love with the rush for music and drugs. In the music video, she performs among various vices including drugs, vehicles, and animals.
The second song, “Boss”, is a flirtatious ditty about foreplay in the back of a vehicle. It’s straight to the point, hot, and steamy. Also, it’s a remake of Lana Del Rey’s “You Can Be the Boss”, from the singer’s “Unreleased” album.
Not too long ago, we covered the third track, “Here For My Habits”, which is also the second single from Suicidal Since 1995.
“Here For My Habits”
On the song, Ängie talks about her sexual-invitation experiences with dealers from her past. She explains how some of them tried to hit on her, some even falling in love with her.
The fourth track, “We Run”, is a song about a drug-induced nighttime romance, perpetrated in the dark or secrecy. But when the sun comes up, the hypnotic-tranced lovers run for cover.
The fifth track, “2013”, speaks about living young, wild, and free. Also, lyrics of hiding from cops and papa indicates a certain level of paranoia due to probably smoking too much bomb weed and drinking alcoholic beverages. Then a deep thought sinks in, “18, I can’t believe where the time’s gone?”
The sixth track, “Coke Ain’t Brain”, takes the volume up another notch. The song speaks of someone being addicted to Mary Jane (marijuana) and now they’re trapped to a ball and chain with Charlie (cocaine) stuffed in their nose.
The seventh song, “Venus in Fur”, is laidback, trancey, with a backdrop made of fluffy pillows. When the singer sings, “I am tired, I am weary. I could sleep for a thousand years,” listeners might find themselves under her spell.
Overall, “Suicidal Since 1995” is a solid debut project worth listening to. It has replay value and we highly recommend adding it to your music library.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/angie-suicidal-since-1995/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated SuperFly (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is a remake of Super Fly from 1972, not one I've seen, after seeing this I don't think I'll bother.
I can't say that any of the acting really stood out over the rest. It's not really my genre/subject matter, but everything did feel rather stereotypical. It was an interesting story, but for me the negatives outweighed the positives.
The style of the first and only real fight scene of the whole film was very good, if a little cheesy. It hit the spot for action but it didn't feel like any of the rest of the movie and stuck out a little for me. Perhaps because it's one of the few times we see Priest express any violence? I'm not sure.
Superfly ticks one of my top film faux pas... tailing people so close that there's no way they're not going to see you. Especially in this instance where the job basically requires you to be excessively paranoid.
At about the half way point I honestly didn't really know what was going on. I was more confused by everything than engrossed.
I don't know the ins and outs of filming techniques, but it seemed like there were a lot of different things involved in this one. As well as the fight scene early on there's a short chase scene where the footage doesn't quite seem real, it's more like game play. Whatever it was (I know you're enjoying my super technical terminology here) it stuck out like a sore thumb.
My only other observation about Superfly is Priest's relationship. Not your usual main stream thing which made a nice change... but... it really felt like it was thrown in gratuitously. I'm not being prudish here, I honestly don't mind sex scenes in films, but this one wasn't needed for the story line. It was over the top and wholly unnecessary.
What should you do?
It's not one I'd go recommending to people, but if you like drug related movies then why not give it a go. If you're more intrigued by that sex scene then I'm sure there's plenty of porn you could watch online instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'll have that big pile of cash, please and thank you.
I can't say that any of the acting really stood out over the rest. It's not really my genre/subject matter, but everything did feel rather stereotypical. It was an interesting story, but for me the negatives outweighed the positives.
The style of the first and only real fight scene of the whole film was very good, if a little cheesy. It hit the spot for action but it didn't feel like any of the rest of the movie and stuck out a little for me. Perhaps because it's one of the few times we see Priest express any violence? I'm not sure.
Superfly ticks one of my top film faux pas... tailing people so close that there's no way they're not going to see you. Especially in this instance where the job basically requires you to be excessively paranoid.
At about the half way point I honestly didn't really know what was going on. I was more confused by everything than engrossed.
I don't know the ins and outs of filming techniques, but it seemed like there were a lot of different things involved in this one. As well as the fight scene early on there's a short chase scene where the footage doesn't quite seem real, it's more like game play. Whatever it was (I know you're enjoying my super technical terminology here) it stuck out like a sore thumb.
My only other observation about Superfly is Priest's relationship. Not your usual main stream thing which made a nice change... but... it really felt like it was thrown in gratuitously. I'm not being prudish here, I honestly don't mind sex scenes in films, but this one wasn't needed for the story line. It was over the top and wholly unnecessary.
What should you do?
It's not one I'd go recommending to people, but if you like drug related movies then why not give it a go. If you're more intrigued by that sex scene then I'm sure there's plenty of porn you could watch online instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'll have that big pile of cash, please and thank you.
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Bates Motel in TV
Aug 6, 2019
Acting (1 more)
Storylines
Hated psycho but enjoyed this
Contains spoilers, click to show
I never saw the original psycho but i did watch the 90s remake which i found very boring, so i went into this not expecting much at all. However, after the first episode i was hooked and bingewatched all 5 seasons in about 3 weeks.
Incase you have never seen or heard of psycho, it's about the teenage life of a boy called Norman Bates, who suffers with blackouts where he becomes violent. Norman helps run a motel with his mother Norma (yes, that's right - Norman and Norma haha!!) Who is very protective of her son. Seasons 1-3 we get to know about the bates and why they are unlike any normal family, there's a few murders but we wonder was it Norman or not? Season 4 and 5 is where it gets very good and Normans shy side of his personality starts to completely diminish and his 'mother' personality takes over more frequently.
Throughout the seasons there wasn't really any main character i disliked, each one had a gripping story attached to them and I even started to like chick - the strange trailer guy who had beef with Dylans dad (and normas brother). The only part of the show i wasn't interested in was Dylans job in the weed selling business but that didn't last long thankfully.
Funny enough I even felt sorry for Norman but at the same time i wanted to smack some sense into Norma for protecting him right up until he killed her.
The final episode was very sad but at the same time you feel happy because Norman got his wish and no longer had to fight 'Mother'. I know many people think a season 6 was needed but i think season 5 ended perfectly. I feel lost now I'm finished though.
Incase you have never seen or heard of psycho, it's about the teenage life of a boy called Norman Bates, who suffers with blackouts where he becomes violent. Norman helps run a motel with his mother Norma (yes, that's right - Norman and Norma haha!!) Who is very protective of her son. Seasons 1-3 we get to know about the bates and why they are unlike any normal family, there's a few murders but we wonder was it Norman or not? Season 4 and 5 is where it gets very good and Normans shy side of his personality starts to completely diminish and his 'mother' personality takes over more frequently.
Throughout the seasons there wasn't really any main character i disliked, each one had a gripping story attached to them and I even started to like chick - the strange trailer guy who had beef with Dylans dad (and normas brother). The only part of the show i wasn't interested in was Dylans job in the weed selling business but that didn't last long thankfully.
Funny enough I even felt sorry for Norman but at the same time i wanted to smack some sense into Norma for protecting him right up until he killed her.
The final episode was very sad but at the same time you feel happy because Norman got his wish and no longer had to fight 'Mother'. I know many people think a season 6 was needed but i think season 5 ended perfectly. I feel lost now I'm finished though.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Partner Remuneration in Law Firms: A Guide to Reward Structures, Performance Management and Decision-Making
Book
Law firms are constantly looking to improve the effectiveness of their partner remuneration systems...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Black Christmas (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
Back in 1974, a low-budget Canadian horror movie by the name of Black Christmas was released and was one of the first to define the slasher movie template that we've now become so heavily accustomed to. Black Christmas already got a remake back in 2006 and now we have another, coming this time from powerhouse movie studio Blumhouse and directed/co-written by Sophia Takal.
Black Christmas retains its campus setting as a group of sorority sisters, all seniors at Hawthorne University, prepare for the end of term and the Christmas holidays. While a group of girls are celebrating one night, one of their friends is being terrorised by a robed killer as she walks home alone down a quiet snowy street, adorned with Christmas decorations. It's all pretty generic stuff so far, and in terms of horror and suspense, that's all we get for about the next 30 minutes or so while the movie shifts down a few gears and tries to introduce us to some characters and some kind of plot.
Riley (Imogen Poots) is one of only a couple of characters who you'll remember come the end of the movie. After passing out at a frat party a few years earlier, Riley was sexually assaulted, and she and her friends are now preparing to sing at another frat party which her accused rapist will also be attending. While looking around the house for a friend who seems to have gone missing, Riley opens the door on a hidden room where she observes a strange ceremony - pledges, wearing medieval robes and masks, are being daubed with some kind of black goo that's oozing from the eyes of a bust depicting the University's founder. She leaves them to it, and heads back to the party, not before rescuing her lost friend from the unwanted advances of another frat boy in his room.
Riley goes on to perform with her friends, a routine which turns out to be a carefully choreographed prank song - worded as a call out to the toxic masculinity and frat rape culture that Riley and so many other girls have experienced first hand. Needless to say, this doesn't go down too well with the boys, even more so when a video of the routine goes viral the next day.
Meanwhile, another one of the sisters is currently in the process of gathering signatures for a petition, in an attempt to get their English professor (Cary Elwes) sacked for not including enough diversity in his curriculum. So, when some of the lesser known female characters begin disappearing, and our main cast begin receiving mysterious and threatening messages on their phones, there are certainly plenty of potential suspects to choose from. Eventually, the killer makes it into the sorority house where Riley and her friends are, and it's up to them all to work together in order to outwit and defeat the killer.
I'm a big fan of the 'final girl' movie, where the seemingly indestructible female lead goes from downtrodden victim to badass warrior (see 'You're Next', or this years hugely enjoyable 'Ready Or Not'), remaining as sole survivor once the dust has settled and the movie comes to its satisfying conclusion. I was really hoping for Black Christmas to follow in that vein, and it's clearly what the filmmakers were aiming for too. But, despite its well-intentioned premise, Black Christmas completely fails to deliver. Death scenes are rushed, not even particularly inventive, and because it is so drearily written and poorly directed, you barely know or even care who most of the victims are anyway. Following a slow and messy first half, the movie then takes a turn towards the supernatural, culminating in a frankly ridiculous final act and cementing this movie firmly in my worst 5 movies of 2019!
Black Christmas retains its campus setting as a group of sorority sisters, all seniors at Hawthorne University, prepare for the end of term and the Christmas holidays. While a group of girls are celebrating one night, one of their friends is being terrorised by a robed killer as she walks home alone down a quiet snowy street, adorned with Christmas decorations. It's all pretty generic stuff so far, and in terms of horror and suspense, that's all we get for about the next 30 minutes or so while the movie shifts down a few gears and tries to introduce us to some characters and some kind of plot.
Riley (Imogen Poots) is one of only a couple of characters who you'll remember come the end of the movie. After passing out at a frat party a few years earlier, Riley was sexually assaulted, and she and her friends are now preparing to sing at another frat party which her accused rapist will also be attending. While looking around the house for a friend who seems to have gone missing, Riley opens the door on a hidden room where she observes a strange ceremony - pledges, wearing medieval robes and masks, are being daubed with some kind of black goo that's oozing from the eyes of a bust depicting the University's founder. She leaves them to it, and heads back to the party, not before rescuing her lost friend from the unwanted advances of another frat boy in his room.
Riley goes on to perform with her friends, a routine which turns out to be a carefully choreographed prank song - worded as a call out to the toxic masculinity and frat rape culture that Riley and so many other girls have experienced first hand. Needless to say, this doesn't go down too well with the boys, even more so when a video of the routine goes viral the next day.
Meanwhile, another one of the sisters is currently in the process of gathering signatures for a petition, in an attempt to get their English professor (Cary Elwes) sacked for not including enough diversity in his curriculum. So, when some of the lesser known female characters begin disappearing, and our main cast begin receiving mysterious and threatening messages on their phones, there are certainly plenty of potential suspects to choose from. Eventually, the killer makes it into the sorority house where Riley and her friends are, and it's up to them all to work together in order to outwit and defeat the killer.
I'm a big fan of the 'final girl' movie, where the seemingly indestructible female lead goes from downtrodden victim to badass warrior (see 'You're Next', or this years hugely enjoyable 'Ready Or Not'), remaining as sole survivor once the dust has settled and the movie comes to its satisfying conclusion. I was really hoping for Black Christmas to follow in that vein, and it's clearly what the filmmakers were aiming for too. But, despite its well-intentioned premise, Black Christmas completely fails to deliver. Death scenes are rushed, not even particularly inventive, and because it is so drearily written and poorly directed, you barely know or even care who most of the victims are anyway. Following a slow and messy first half, the movie then takes a turn towards the supernatural, culminating in a frankly ridiculous final act and cementing this movie firmly in my worst 5 movies of 2019!
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
