Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Mar 11, 2019
Classic
Two brothers rob banks in west Texas to pay off overdue loans before their family home is foreclosed on.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
From the first scene in the beginning with Tanner (Ben Foster) and Toby (Chris Pine), I knew I was going to like the two brothers. One’s a loose cannon while the other is more level-headed and calculated. They argue like typical brothers because they are so different and their interactions remind you of typical sibling hate/love. As a viewer, their personalities worked so well for me because you realize both were needed throughout the movie. Sometimes you needed cool, other times crazy was definitely needed to get the two out of a rough scrape.
I also enjoyed Jeff Bridges character playing the role of Sheriff Marcus, the area’s dedicated peacemaker. He speaks with a quick drawl straight out of an Eastwood western. He is overly truthful to a hilarious extent. He is on his way to retirement and feels like catching Tanner and Toby could be his last bit of peace.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
While there truly are some impactful intense moments that help drive the narrative, Hell Or High Water is more drama than it is an action film. You do get a fair share of bank robberies, car chases, and shootouts. It just would have been nice if they had showed a bit more of that. Some of the parts that dragged on a bit would have served well with a bit more conflict.
Genre: 8
A powerful story about family helping family. Time will tell, but I think it’s a story that will keep its power years from now. The storytelling and direction is just as strong as any of my all-time favorites. Hell Or High Water packs a potent punch.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
The bank robbery genre has been done and redone, but not quite like this. From its setting to the backdrop of the plot, this movie paves its own way within a crowded and successful genre. It succeeds with memorable dialogue and making every single scene count towards a definitive end.
Resolution: 10
The final scene features a conversation between Marcus and Toby. It’s hands-down the most memorable scene in the entire film as you get to see how this chain of events has ultimately affected both characters. They have both gained and lost and both face ghosts that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. It’s a scene that stuck with me long after I watched it.
Overall: 92
Set against a sprawling, yet compacted west Texas, Hell Or High Water gives you everything you look for in a movie. Memorable scenes abound keeping the movie entertaining and fresh. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s a classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
From the first scene in the beginning with Tanner (Ben Foster) and Toby (Chris Pine), I knew I was going to like the two brothers. One’s a loose cannon while the other is more level-headed and calculated. They argue like typical brothers because they are so different and their interactions remind you of typical sibling hate/love. As a viewer, their personalities worked so well for me because you realize both were needed throughout the movie. Sometimes you needed cool, other times crazy was definitely needed to get the two out of a rough scrape.
I also enjoyed Jeff Bridges character playing the role of Sheriff Marcus, the area’s dedicated peacemaker. He speaks with a quick drawl straight out of an Eastwood western. He is overly truthful to a hilarious extent. He is on his way to retirement and feels like catching Tanner and Toby could be his last bit of peace.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
While there truly are some impactful intense moments that help drive the narrative, Hell Or High Water is more drama than it is an action film. You do get a fair share of bank robberies, car chases, and shootouts. It just would have been nice if they had showed a bit more of that. Some of the parts that dragged on a bit would have served well with a bit more conflict.
Genre: 8
A powerful story about family helping family. Time will tell, but I think it’s a story that will keep its power years from now. The storytelling and direction is just as strong as any of my all-time favorites. Hell Or High Water packs a potent punch.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
The bank robbery genre has been done and redone, but not quite like this. From its setting to the backdrop of the plot, this movie paves its own way within a crowded and successful genre. It succeeds with memorable dialogue and making every single scene count towards a definitive end.
Resolution: 10
The final scene features a conversation between Marcus and Toby. It’s hands-down the most memorable scene in the entire film as you get to see how this chain of events has ultimately affected both characters. They have both gained and lost and both face ghosts that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. It’s a scene that stuck with me long after I watched it.
Overall: 92
Set against a sprawling, yet compacted west Texas, Hell Or High Water gives you everything you look for in a movie. Memorable scenes abound keeping the movie entertaining and fresh. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s a classic.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Darkness in Books
Jun 5, 2019
The Darkness by Ragnar Jónasson is an exciting Icelandic crime story, that’s dark, moody and realistic in both setting and characterisation.
The moment Detective Inspector Hulda Hermannsdóttir of the Reykjavik Police was rudely told to leave her job and take early retirement to make way for a younger replacement I knew I was going to love this book. From there on, I wanted her to succeed in anything she touched, if only to get her own back on her boss.
After negotiating whilst still in shock, the detective was told she could stay on, but only if she worked on one of the cold, unsolved cases during her final two weeks. The fact that her current cases and other work had already been distributed to other staff angered both me and Hulda!
Fortunately, Hulda kept her cool (much better than I did) and immediately decided which case to pick, since it was one she’d felt her colleague Alexander had never dealt with properly in the first place, but at the time she was not in the position to argue with him.
With two weeks in her position left she re-opened the cold case of the Russian girl and asylum seeker, Elena. eager to prove she didn’t kill herself by drowning but was murdered. And in the first 24 hours she knew more than what was put on Alexander’s original report. Go girl!
From here on, we follow Hulda’s investigation, in third person point of view, and we also hear the story of an unknown girl’s own narrative in first person.
Oh, how I loved Alexander’s reaction when he discovered Hulda looking into his closed case. If that’s not the sign of a guilty man then I don’t know what is! Brilliant!
In addition, when Hulda’s two weeks on the case were reduced to only one day by her angry boss, I raced through this book as if reading it faster would help her solve the case even quicker!
Hulda is one of my favourite ‘older’ characters, who has been through a lot, with secrets of her own, and I rooted for her throughout this story. She’s a courageous, hardworking and down-to-earth character who has faced a lot of prejudice during her career in the police force just for being a woman. The fact that Ragnar Jónasson has clearly emphasised this point right up to her last few days on the job, makes the sucker-punch of an ending even harder to deal with.
I loved every minute of this book, and even the sad, disappointing, yet shocking and annoying ending cannot sway me from awarding this book five stars. Confession Time; Want to know something else? I only picked this book up to have a brief look, with the thought of getting to it soon. But once I picked it up I couldn’t put the bloody thing back down again…
The moment Detective Inspector Hulda Hermannsdóttir of the Reykjavik Police was rudely told to leave her job and take early retirement to make way for a younger replacement I knew I was going to love this book. From there on, I wanted her to succeed in anything she touched, if only to get her own back on her boss.
After negotiating whilst still in shock, the detective was told she could stay on, but only if she worked on one of the cold, unsolved cases during her final two weeks. The fact that her current cases and other work had already been distributed to other staff angered both me and Hulda!
Fortunately, Hulda kept her cool (much better than I did) and immediately decided which case to pick, since it was one she’d felt her colleague Alexander had never dealt with properly in the first place, but at the time she was not in the position to argue with him.
With two weeks in her position left she re-opened the cold case of the Russian girl and asylum seeker, Elena. eager to prove she didn’t kill herself by drowning but was murdered. And in the first 24 hours she knew more than what was put on Alexander’s original report. Go girl!
From here on, we follow Hulda’s investigation, in third person point of view, and we also hear the story of an unknown girl’s own narrative in first person.
Oh, how I loved Alexander’s reaction when he discovered Hulda looking into his closed case. If that’s not the sign of a guilty man then I don’t know what is! Brilliant!
In addition, when Hulda’s two weeks on the case were reduced to only one day by her angry boss, I raced through this book as if reading it faster would help her solve the case even quicker!
Hulda is one of my favourite ‘older’ characters, who has been through a lot, with secrets of her own, and I rooted for her throughout this story. She’s a courageous, hardworking and down-to-earth character who has faced a lot of prejudice during her career in the police force just for being a woman. The fact that Ragnar Jónasson has clearly emphasised this point right up to her last few days on the job, makes the sucker-punch of an ending even harder to deal with.
I loved every minute of this book, and even the sad, disappointing, yet shocking and annoying ending cannot sway me from awarding this book five stars. Confession Time; Want to know something else? I only picked this book up to have a brief look, with the thought of getting to it soon. But once I picked it up I couldn’t put the bloody thing back down again…
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Aug 14, 2018
The acting is awful - from everyone (1 more)
The script is terrible
Fun action movie
If you've seen any of the posters or trailers for The Meg, you know exactly what you're in for. It's basically Jason Statham versus a big ass prehistoric shark, and that's pretty much all you need to know. If you're expecting a decent script, without any clichés, or any kind of decent acting for that matter, then you're likely to be disappointed. This movie pretty much does what it says on the tin.
Jason Statham stars as Jonas Taylor, currently retired from deep sea diving hero work and living a chilled life in Thailand, beer permanently in his hand. Five years earlier, Jonas was involved in an underwater operation which ended badly - a mysterious sea creature put a huge dent in the side of a submersible and Jonas had to make the painful decision to leave some men behind in order to save the rest. But when a hi-tech marine research station sends a crew down more than 10,000 metres into the ocean, beyond an icy barrier of hydrogen sulphide and into unexplored waters, they encounter a 70ft megalodon and find themselves trapped. Time for Jonas, the only man capable of rescuing them, to be lured out out of retirement. Unfortunately though, as the submersibles return to the surface, they unknowingly create a thermal pathway through the icy cold layer, and the meg follows them back up.
By this point we're nearly half way through the movie, and we've so far only caught a couple of glimpses of the meg and the kind of damage it can cause. The rest of the time up until now has been filled with introducing us to a large number of dull characters, both on the research station and the submersible. To be fair though, the script is terrible - full of clichés and failed attempts at humour and one-liners, but even then the delivery from literally everyone involved is pretty awful, the acting on show here is shocking. When things do kick off with the shark though, it's less talk more action, and that's when the film is at its most enjoyable.
Many of the action scenes are, as you'd expect, ridiculous, over the top and wildly enjoyable. Jonas tries 'sneaking up' on the meg in order to fire it with a tracking dart, only for the meg to give chase as Jonas is rapidly winched back in, swerving to avoid the huge jaws. Later on, the meg finds its way to a densely populated beach. Hundreds of nicely arranged bathers in their rubber rings, men rolling around in zorbs, people on jet skis - the perfect scenario for mass panic and carnage.
Overall, this is a good fun action movie which really should have focused a little more on a tighter script. Still worth a watch though.
Jason Statham stars as Jonas Taylor, currently retired from deep sea diving hero work and living a chilled life in Thailand, beer permanently in his hand. Five years earlier, Jonas was involved in an underwater operation which ended badly - a mysterious sea creature put a huge dent in the side of a submersible and Jonas had to make the painful decision to leave some men behind in order to save the rest. But when a hi-tech marine research station sends a crew down more than 10,000 metres into the ocean, beyond an icy barrier of hydrogen sulphide and into unexplored waters, they encounter a 70ft megalodon and find themselves trapped. Time for Jonas, the only man capable of rescuing them, to be lured out out of retirement. Unfortunately though, as the submersibles return to the surface, they unknowingly create a thermal pathway through the icy cold layer, and the meg follows them back up.
By this point we're nearly half way through the movie, and we've so far only caught a couple of glimpses of the meg and the kind of damage it can cause. The rest of the time up until now has been filled with introducing us to a large number of dull characters, both on the research station and the submersible. To be fair though, the script is terrible - full of clichés and failed attempts at humour and one-liners, but even then the delivery from literally everyone involved is pretty awful, the acting on show here is shocking. When things do kick off with the shark though, it's less talk more action, and that's when the film is at its most enjoyable.
Many of the action scenes are, as you'd expect, ridiculous, over the top and wildly enjoyable. Jonas tries 'sneaking up' on the meg in order to fire it with a tracking dart, only for the meg to give chase as Jonas is rapidly winched back in, swerving to avoid the huge jaws. Later on, the meg finds its way to a densely populated beach. Hundreds of nicely arranged bathers in their rubber rings, men rolling around in zorbs, people on jet skis - the perfect scenario for mass panic and carnage.
Overall, this is a good fun action movie which really should have focused a little more on a tighter script. Still worth a watch though.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Equalizer (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m not going to waste ANY time getting started with this one. No, you’re not daydreaming. Denzel Washington has teamed-up again with director Antoine Fuqua and once again, they’ve created another outstanding masterpiece of a movie. In fact, the film has seen such postive reviews so far that there’s already talk of a sequal and even a possible franchise. After seeing the film myself, I would not be surprised in the least if
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
The Little Book of Common Sense Investing
Book
The best-selling investing "bible" offers new information, new insights, and new perspectives The...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Toni Erdmann (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Well Now! *over exaggerated sigh of relief* After my first movie review of the year it is a suspicious coincidence as well as a welcome relief, that I have the incredibly good fortune to bring you the review of a movie that is not only good but it’s original, sometimes confusing, weird, downright funny, and German. Hey, sometimes when you are disappointed with a domestic film it’s best to look at a foreign film. That ‘strategy’ applies to any movie viewer in any country I can assure you. Today’s film for your consideration is already making waves and winning awards in Germany, Europe, and around the world. It’s making such a significant fuss that as of February 7th, its confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of self-imposed retirement to portray the lead in an American remake of the movie!
‘Toni Erdmann’ is an Austrian-German dramatic comedy written, directed, and co-produced by Maren Abe. The film stars famed Austrian actor Peter Simonischek as Winfried Conradi (the character was based on the directors father a purported prankster) a divorced music teacher and father whose considered by his family, friends, and students to be a hippie. He has the reputation of being a prankster and is notorious for playing practical jokes. He is estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller). An ambitious business woman working for a company in Romania. They rarely speak except for family gatherings at which Ines is usually on her phone conducting business and actually spends little time with the family. Her father in particular. The only friendship Winfried has is with his blind and deaf dog. One night, after a family gathering and paying a visit to his mother, Winfried falls asleep in his front yard only to wake up and find that his beloved dog has passed away during the night. Feeling lost and dwelling on the past, he travels to Bucharest where his daughter currently consults for an oil company. He finds the office complex where she is based and waits in the lobby for several hours. Finally, he catches a glimpse of Ines walking through the lobby with several board members of her client’s company and sneaks up behind them wearing sunglasses and his trademarked fake teeth while pretending to read a newspaper. Ines notices but completely ignores Winfried. Despite the failure of his practical joke, Ines contacts her father and invites him to a reception at the American embassy in Bucharest where they have a chance encounter with the CEO of a German oil company Mr. Henneberg with whom Ines has been desperately trying arrange business dealings with. While paying little attention to Ines, ironically Henneberg begins a conversation with Winfried in which he casually and jokingly mentioned that he has hired a replacement daughter because Ines is always so busy. Much to the surprise of both, Henneberg invites Ines and her father to join him and his entourage for drinks at a trendy bar where he continues to brush off Ines but only after sharing Winfried’s joke with his colleagues.
Ines is so absorbed in her work she seems to only tolerate her father’s presence and after a few days, Winfried decides to leave feeling alienated as though he’s getting in the way of his daughter’s life. A few days later, Ines and two of her friends are out having drinks when Winfried appears at the bar. Wearing a wig and his trademark false teeth he chimes in on the conversation between his daughter and her friends and comically introduces himself as ‘Toni Erdmann’ a consultant and life coach. Ines two friends continue to converse with him trying their best not to laugh while Winfried continues to ‘enhance’ his character much to the dismay of Ines.
Meanwhile, Ines day-to-Day work routine becomes more frustrating as she seems to be going nowhere with her career despite her best efforts. Becoming almost amused with her father’s character, Ines decides to play along with the character and even invites ‘Erdmann’ to spend time with her at work and with her friends and later even to a business meeting. Strangely enough, the ‘Erdmann’ character created by her father has become a strange and hilarious means of bonding with her father leading to one misadventure after another in which she decides she no longer cares about her current state of being and proceeds to alienate her boss and her colleagues and a way that’s reminiscent of her father’s ‘prankster tendencies’.
This film did not disappoint. It’s funny, it’s shocking, it’s awkward at some points. Most importantly, it’s original. It flys in the face of routine and redundancy and like many great films implies that in the end, the most important thing is family. When worse comes to worse family might not always get you out of trouble but they will certainly provide the catalyst for an escape from the hum drum of whatever is eating at your life.
‘Toni Erdmann’ has already been nominated for ‘Best Film Of The Year’ by critics in several countries including France and England. It premiered at the Cannes film festival last year in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category of the film festival but the night before its premiere, the judges and critics gave it such praise it was immediately added to the more prestigious ‘Palme d’Or’ category and went on to receive high praise at its premiere. It has already won 20 awards in serval countries with many more awards pending. I’m calling this film 4 out of 5 stars. The film clocks in at 162 minutes. A bit long on the tooth for running time but DO NOT let that discourage you from seeing the film. Do yourself a favor and check out ‘Toni Erdmann’ now and see the original in all it’s hilarious glory. As I mentioned earlier, it’s been confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of retirement to portray the lead in the American remake. This film is totally something you would’ve seen Mr. Nicholson doing early in his career back when he was just getting started as an actor. Even with this in mind someone somewhere along the line could still screw it up.
‘Toni Erdmann’ is an Austrian-German dramatic comedy written, directed, and co-produced by Maren Abe. The film stars famed Austrian actor Peter Simonischek as Winfried Conradi (the character was based on the directors father a purported prankster) a divorced music teacher and father whose considered by his family, friends, and students to be a hippie. He has the reputation of being a prankster and is notorious for playing practical jokes. He is estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller). An ambitious business woman working for a company in Romania. They rarely speak except for family gatherings at which Ines is usually on her phone conducting business and actually spends little time with the family. Her father in particular. The only friendship Winfried has is with his blind and deaf dog. One night, after a family gathering and paying a visit to his mother, Winfried falls asleep in his front yard only to wake up and find that his beloved dog has passed away during the night. Feeling lost and dwelling on the past, he travels to Bucharest where his daughter currently consults for an oil company. He finds the office complex where she is based and waits in the lobby for several hours. Finally, he catches a glimpse of Ines walking through the lobby with several board members of her client’s company and sneaks up behind them wearing sunglasses and his trademarked fake teeth while pretending to read a newspaper. Ines notices but completely ignores Winfried. Despite the failure of his practical joke, Ines contacts her father and invites him to a reception at the American embassy in Bucharest where they have a chance encounter with the CEO of a German oil company Mr. Henneberg with whom Ines has been desperately trying arrange business dealings with. While paying little attention to Ines, ironically Henneberg begins a conversation with Winfried in which he casually and jokingly mentioned that he has hired a replacement daughter because Ines is always so busy. Much to the surprise of both, Henneberg invites Ines and her father to join him and his entourage for drinks at a trendy bar where he continues to brush off Ines but only after sharing Winfried’s joke with his colleagues.
Ines is so absorbed in her work she seems to only tolerate her father’s presence and after a few days, Winfried decides to leave feeling alienated as though he’s getting in the way of his daughter’s life. A few days later, Ines and two of her friends are out having drinks when Winfried appears at the bar. Wearing a wig and his trademark false teeth he chimes in on the conversation between his daughter and her friends and comically introduces himself as ‘Toni Erdmann’ a consultant and life coach. Ines two friends continue to converse with him trying their best not to laugh while Winfried continues to ‘enhance’ his character much to the dismay of Ines.
Meanwhile, Ines day-to-Day work routine becomes more frustrating as she seems to be going nowhere with her career despite her best efforts. Becoming almost amused with her father’s character, Ines decides to play along with the character and even invites ‘Erdmann’ to spend time with her at work and with her friends and later even to a business meeting. Strangely enough, the ‘Erdmann’ character created by her father has become a strange and hilarious means of bonding with her father leading to one misadventure after another in which she decides she no longer cares about her current state of being and proceeds to alienate her boss and her colleagues and a way that’s reminiscent of her father’s ‘prankster tendencies’.
This film did not disappoint. It’s funny, it’s shocking, it’s awkward at some points. Most importantly, it’s original. It flys in the face of routine and redundancy and like many great films implies that in the end, the most important thing is family. When worse comes to worse family might not always get you out of trouble but they will certainly provide the catalyst for an escape from the hum drum of whatever is eating at your life.
‘Toni Erdmann’ has already been nominated for ‘Best Film Of The Year’ by critics in several countries including France and England. It premiered at the Cannes film festival last year in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category of the film festival but the night before its premiere, the judges and critics gave it such praise it was immediately added to the more prestigious ‘Palme d’Or’ category and went on to receive high praise at its premiere. It has already won 20 awards in serval countries with many more awards pending. I’m calling this film 4 out of 5 stars. The film clocks in at 162 minutes. A bit long on the tooth for running time but DO NOT let that discourage you from seeing the film. Do yourself a favor and check out ‘Toni Erdmann’ now and see the original in all it’s hilarious glory. As I mentioned earlier, it’s been confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of retirement to portray the lead in the American remake. This film is totally something you would’ve seen Mr. Nicholson doing early in his career back when he was just getting started as an actor. Even with this in mind someone somewhere along the line could still screw it up.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Bad Boys, Bad Boys II, what ya gonna do? Go and watch Bad Boys For Life, that's what you're gonna do.
Mike and Marcus are still going strong but Marcus wants to slow down and ease into retirement. His life is changing and it's time to realise he's not a boy anymore. When their celebrations are rudely interrupted a hunt begins, good against bad, old school police work versus new. Will this be the end of the road for our Bad Boys?
I rewatched the original movies before this because of course you have to! Something I loved about this is that they managed to bring the series up to date while still keeping some of the key elements that added fun to the first two instalments. There's nostalgia here that I absolutely love, more on that later.
There were times while watching Bad Boys For Life that I pondered if it was still a Michael Bay film, there are quite a few glossy moments that feel like they have a touch of Bayhem about them.
I love that the original cast are back with the same great chemistry. I wasn't overly keen on the additional cast they brought in. With an established universe it's difficult to bring in that many new characters. There was a solid effort to get their backstories and personalities in but with so much other story happening it often felt out of place or tacked on. A quicker way might have been to have them introduced from their files with montage shots and be done with. I did at one point assume it was just a set up for the next film.
One of the little surprises for me was DJ Khaled, I didn't know he was in it and his part was just great, he played it so well that I was a little sad there wasn't more.
Everything has a very crisp feel to it, which was another reason my brain kept saying Bay. Vibrant surrounding, costumes and sets all perfectly matched together. I liked the contrasts between Mike and Marcus' lives, though the montage just made me think of Hobbs and Shaw and how that felt better.
There are lots of holes to pick in this, the script isn't great and I wasn't fond of the way the main storyline came together at the end but this is one of those instances where I don't think it matters. I have never watched a Bad Boys movie for its Shakespearean drama, I watch it for the banter and the action. Bad Boys For Life has that in spade, as well as an incredible amount of emotion and heart.
This is the sort of film I like to watch to have a break from the stress, I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out. It's got that chicken soup feel to it, it's familiar and it's fun... and sometimes that's what you need.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/bad-boys-for-life-movie-review.html
Mike and Marcus are still going strong but Marcus wants to slow down and ease into retirement. His life is changing and it's time to realise he's not a boy anymore. When their celebrations are rudely interrupted a hunt begins, good against bad, old school police work versus new. Will this be the end of the road for our Bad Boys?
I rewatched the original movies before this because of course you have to! Something I loved about this is that they managed to bring the series up to date while still keeping some of the key elements that added fun to the first two instalments. There's nostalgia here that I absolutely love, more on that later.
There were times while watching Bad Boys For Life that I pondered if it was still a Michael Bay film, there are quite a few glossy moments that feel like they have a touch of Bayhem about them.
I love that the original cast are back with the same great chemistry. I wasn't overly keen on the additional cast they brought in. With an established universe it's difficult to bring in that many new characters. There was a solid effort to get their backstories and personalities in but with so much other story happening it often felt out of place or tacked on. A quicker way might have been to have them introduced from their files with montage shots and be done with. I did at one point assume it was just a set up for the next film.
One of the little surprises for me was DJ Khaled, I didn't know he was in it and his part was just great, he played it so well that I was a little sad there wasn't more.
Everything has a very crisp feel to it, which was another reason my brain kept saying Bay. Vibrant surrounding, costumes and sets all perfectly matched together. I liked the contrasts between Mike and Marcus' lives, though the montage just made me think of Hobbs and Shaw and how that felt better.
There are lots of holes to pick in this, the script isn't great and I wasn't fond of the way the main storyline came together at the end but this is one of those instances where I don't think it matters. I have never watched a Bad Boys movie for its Shakespearean drama, I watch it for the banter and the action. Bad Boys For Life has that in spade, as well as an incredible amount of emotion and heart.
This is the sort of film I like to watch to have a break from the stress, I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out. It's got that chicken soup feel to it, it's familiar and it's fun... and sometimes that's what you need.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/bad-boys-for-life-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Looper (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the world of 2072, it is learned that time travel has been invented and is declared illegal by all the governments of the world. Naturally, the criminal elements of the future embrace the technology. Apparently getting rid of bodies and people in the future is tricky because of innovative tagging and tracking technology.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Casino Royale (1967) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
It Gets Real Bad
Here’s what Rotten Tomatoes has to say because I couldn’t begin to tell you what this shit-show is about: “This James Bond spoof features the hero coming out of retirement to attempt to fix some problems for SMERSH, while a multitude of other subplots unwind about the central figure.” Yeah, even RT was having trouble trying to figure out what the hell was going on with the 1967 Casino Royale. How bad is it? Well, let’s just say I just finished reading a list of the Top 100 Worst Movies of All Time and I was very surprised to not see this movie on there.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.